Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

Ryan’s whole thing and the core of his success is that he is the laid-back, self deprecating, relatable guy who feels extremely lucky and humbled by his success and his beautiful wife at every turn. We are now seeing a very obsessive, manipulative, desperate version of him.

Giving BL and RR the benefit of the doubt that Blake experienced some form of sexual harassment, nothing about the way they acted is normal. From her continuing to be buddies with him, inviting him on a private jet with her family, constantly inviting him to the apartment and even having him around Taylor, who’s been a victim of sexual harassment herself, the constant joking texts, inviting him to run lines while pumping, all in a timeline that would show that she had experienced what she claims was sexual harassment during before all of these times….

Then Ryan’s downright obsession with Justin and nice pool, getting involved in the marketing and frankly filming that weird stunt with her other costar where he was jealous, walking around calling Justin a sexual predator when at most he is creepy and inappropriate (i’ve seen absolutely no evidence he’s preyed on anyone)…its just not the Ryan we’ve seen before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking Ryan and Blake are going to apologize should quickly rethink that lmao

Apologize to who? Baldoni? Why?

Yes people thought Blake and Ryan would settle then publicly apology. That's never ever happening

I don't see why anyone would expect them to file a blockbuster lawsuit and then immediately settle and apologize. The case is just starting. There would be no reason to file if not willing to see it through.

The reason would be to preserve their images and likely careers. They have little to nothing to gain at this point by fighting a protracted legal battle while having the court of public opinion and their peers turn against them. It's not clear to me how you don't understand that. Even with a win I like, "well, the bad guy wins again. Woohoo?"

But you can flip this logic the other direction. There are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they win the case on the merits. And there are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they dropped their case and agreed with Wayfarer's narrative and said they were sorry. If that's the case, they might as well just do what they want, since people will literally hate them no matter what they do.

BL/RR believe they are in the right. They believe Baldoni and Heath are hypocritical grifters who posed as male feminists for clout, and then harassed women including Lively on the set of this movie. Lively believes Baldoni sought to film gratuitous sex scenes in this movie featuring domestic violence and sought to prevent that and to prevent Baldoni from making a more salacious cut of the movie. Lively believes that Baldoni and Heath then retaliated against her for doing this by hiring Abel, Nathan, and Jed Wallace to destroy her rep online. And Lively and Reynolds believe that Sarowitz has sworn to spend 100 million dollars to destroy them and kill their careers.

You might think all of that is delusional, but they really believe it. That is their reality. So the idea that they would apologize makes no sense at all. It's actually logical, from their perspective, to continue to pursue this. Because Baldoni supporters will hate them no matter what, and their sincere belief is that Baldoni, Heath, and Sarowitz harmed them, maliciously, and have sworn to destroy them anyway. So they might as well fight.

I'm sure I'll be called a shameless BL supporter now but note I'm not saying I agree with all this. I just find it bizarre when people are like "oh they're on the ropes, surely they will settle any minute now." It's completely illogical.

It's actually not clear at all to me what BL believes or doesn't. There's an alternate theory RR is behind basically all of this and BL is basically along for the ride with a power hungry, super controlling spouse. If she's aligned, sure they'll go to the end of this, but if that's at all at play, they might settle for her own mental health and well being. BUT he appears to be a man who treats his wife like shit so maybe that is not a factor? A lot of the Hollywood PR people come down more on this side. It's a dick measuring contest of power between RR and Baldoni. It's actually a pretty sympathetic take towards Lively without making her a Baldoni victim.

This all just sounds like a bunch of projection and speculation to me. Like something people hope is true but it's based on nothing.

Occam's razor says that Lively sued because she believes her allegations and her husband supports her because he believes his wife. This just feels like a gossip columnist trying to make it more interesting than it is.

Actually, I think the prevailing theory is that Blake never intended to sue and had planned for this to be a PR battle only. Remember this all started with a CRD complaint and an article. She was backed into a corner to sue after JB’s strong reaction to the nyt article.

I completely agree with this. I do think the BL thought she was in the right. I wonder if her team or she was actually surprised at some of the counter arguments justin presented. for example I think she really believes the movie financer was on set when she filmed the birth scene. She may have been upset and uncomfortable, and just combined things in her head that didn’t happen.

I think she also felt really uncomfortable during the dancing scene, and maybe in her head she thought those things happened, but when we saw them on video with the additional context, it seemed a lot less problematic than what she thought. Add onto the fact that nobody on her team thought that the microphones picked up sound for that scene.

I don’t believe that she saw any of her behaviors as problematic, inexplicably. Constantly threatening to walk off the movie, crossing all the boundaries that she did, I guess she thought either we wouldn’t see that or she didn’t see why it was a problem when you’re accusing someone of sexual harassment.

I really don’t think anyone on her team envisioned bringing Taylor into it.

I wonder if this movie had been a moderate success if this even would’ve happened. I think Blake was being fed a lot by her team, wow you made this film $350 million. That was YOU. I think she really think she did all of the things to earn the producer credit when really she was just kind of dancing around the surface of creative decisions, relying on her husband to rewrite a scene, hiring an editor that did some good cuts, picking out clothes. I think she did a great job of convincing the cast to turn against Justin and on her side, which I will give her credit for.

But then to have this huge success, I think she was just deeply delusional. You cannot convince me Blake and Ryan, given their whole persona that they were presenting to the public, wanted a prolonged legal battle where embarrassing texts were shown to the world and Taylor Swift was dragged into it. There is just simply no way they saw this coming.

[Anonymous]

Additional motions were filed yesterday but it's unclear what. I don't think it's a Reynolds motion to stay discovery because that would have just been a letter motion, and these are actual memoranda. Lively's motion to dismiss? Also something filed under seal I believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

I don't get how anyone could think Reynold's MTD "throws Blake under the bus." I read it and don't see anything that would negatively impact her case. They have the same lawyers. Blake's MTD is due tomorrow and I assume they were drafted in tandem, and that Reynold's MTD was designed to pave the way for Lively's, enabling her to incorporate some of his arguments in order to use her limited space to make other arguments for the claims that only concern her.

I agree with this. There seems to be a separate reality for some Baldoni supporters where everything the Lively side does reflects some internal emergency and that the case is going terribly for them, when right now the case itself (if not the PR side) is actually going fairly well. Freedman isn't even attempting to dismiss their complaint but has already admitted significant flaws in their own complaint which already has been amended once. Freedman needs to be responding to all these motions, drafting discovery, responding to discovery, and teeing up his new complaint all at the same time. That's a lot if he's really more of a settlement negotiator and less of a trial litigator.

Meanwhile, where has slippery Jed Wallace disappeared to? I don't think he's made an appearance or been served yet. Wonder why he so keen on avoiding being pulled into this suit, haha not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Additional motions were filed yesterday but it's unclear what. I don't think it's a Reynolds motion to stay discovery because that would have just been a letter motion, and these are actual memoranda. Lively's motion to dismiss? Also something filed under seal I believe.

It’s Wallace’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

I don't get how anyone could think Reynold's MTD "throws Blake under the bus." I read it and don't see anything that would negatively impact her case. They have the same lawyers. Blake's MTD is due tomorrow and I assume they were drafted in tandem, and that Reynold's MTD was designed to pave the way for Lively's, enabling her to incorporate some of his arguments in order to use her limited space to make other arguments for the claims that only concern her.

I agree with this. There seems to be a separate reality for some Baldoni supporters where everything the Lively side does reflects some internal emergency and that the case is going terribly for them, when right now the case itself (if not the PR side) is actually going fairly well. Freedman isn't even attempting to dismiss their complaint but has already admitted significant flaws in their own complaint which already has been amended once. Freedman needs to be responding to all these motions, drafting discovery, responding to discovery, and teeing up his new complaint all at the same time. That's a lot if he's really more of a settlement negotiator and less of a trial litigator.

Meanwhile, where has slippery Jed Wallace disappeared to? I don't think he's made an appearance or been served yet. Wonder why he so keen on avoiding being pulled into this suit, haha not really.

Here is Jed Wallace's statement, signed under oath. Highly recommend reading all 5 pages.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/gdTaSbalWT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Additional motions were filed yesterday but it's unclear what. I don't think it's a Reynolds motion to stay discovery because that would have just been a letter motion, and these are actual memoranda. Lively's motion to dismiss? Also something filed under seal I believe.

It’s Wallace’s.

Someone posted his full MTD and declaration under oath on Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

I don't get how anyone could think Reynold's MTD "throws Blake under the bus." I read it and don't see anything that would negatively impact her case. They have the same lawyers. Blake's MTD is due tomorrow and I assume they were drafted in tandem, and that Reynold's MTD was designed to pave the way for Lively's, enabling her to incorporate some of his arguments in order to use her limited space to make other arguments for the claims that only concern her.

I agree with this. There seems to be a separate reality for some Baldoni supporters where everything the Lively side does reflects some internal emergency and that the case is going terribly for them, when right now the case itself (if not the PR side) is actually going fairly well. Freedman isn't even attempting to dismiss their complaint but has already admitted significant flaws in their own complaint which already has been amended once. Freedman needs to be responding to all these motions, drafting discovery, responding to discovery, and teeing up his new complaint all at the same time. That's a lot if he's really more of a settlement negotiator and less of a trial litigator.

Meanwhile, where has slippery Jed Wallace disappeared to? I don't think he's made an appearance or been served yet. Wonder why he so keen on avoiding being pulled into this suit, haha not really.

A JB MTD would fail and is just not worth the risk. He’ll end up with the same dumb “I didn’t, but if I did it’s not illegal” crap that RR and LS have put out. It’ll be bad PR for him to take such a stance when he knows he needs to go the distance anyway. BF knows what he’s doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On to something else - amazing hit pieces in media yesterday about RR and his disdain for JB. Judging by the comments at different forums, it’s not a positive look for RR. His brand appears to be sinking more. Some feel his MTD response throws Blake under the bus. Others say that’s just their thing.

Can’t wait to see this next round of rulings. RR really does posit whether extreme dislike is legal grounds to intimidate without recourse.

Let’s see what Lima’s says. Not looking for any pro Blake opinions here. Just sharing a thought from media stories.

I don't get how anyone could think Reynold's MTD "throws Blake under the bus." I read it and don't see anything that would negatively impact her case. They have the same lawyers. Blake's MTD is due tomorrow and I assume they were drafted in tandem, and that Reynold's MTD was designed to pave the way for Lively's, enabling her to incorporate some of his arguments in order to use her limited space to make other arguments for the claims that only concern her.

I agree with this. There seems to be a separate reality for some Baldoni supporters where everything the Lively side does reflects some internal emergency and that the case is going terribly for them, when right now the case itself (if not the PR side) is actually going fairly well. Freedman isn't even attempting to dismiss their complaint but has already admitted significant flaws in their own complaint which already has been amended once. Freedman needs to be responding to all these motions, drafting discovery, responding to discovery, and teeing up his new complaint all at the same time. That's a lot if he's really more of a settlement negotiator and less of a trial litigator.

Meanwhile, where has slippery Jed Wallace disappeared to? I don't think he's made an appearance or been served yet. Wonder why he so keen on avoiding being pulled into this suit, haha not really.

Here is Jed Wallace's statement, signed under oath. Highly recommend reading all 5 pages.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/gdTaSbalWT

It’s persuasive. Says he was hired to do media monitoring and analytics, her bad press was organic (which is why he said “we’re crushing it on Reddit”) has never posted about Blake and doubts anyone else in the wayfarer party did either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Additional motions were filed yesterday but it's unclear what. I don't think it's a Reynolds motion to stay discovery because that would have just been a letter motion, and these are actual memoranda. Lively's motion to dismiss? Also something filed under seal I believe.

It’s Wallace’s.

Someone posted his full MTD and declaration under oath on Reddit.

I love that everyone is reading Reddit now!

So, on Reddit, they are calling RR pettypool. I think I’ll use that now.

And BL. I’ll call her “boots!”

Boots is having a bad day with this Wallace filing!

[Anonymous]

I’ve been defending Lively. If what’s in Wallace’s declaration is true — that Wallace only monitored and did nothing to influence content — that would be a big blow for her case. Maybe he will even win on the personal jurisdiction argument, and get the case severed to TX.

Curious to me that he says he was working on this from August to November and then suddenly decided to go to NYC in December for two weeks with his family but conducted no business at all there the entire time. Who runs a business single-handedly and then has the ability to turn everything off for two whole weeks and send out zero business related texts, emails, or calls? That seems dodgy to me, and that alone could probably give him minimum NY contacts for jurisdiction for this suit. And, if he’s lying in his declaration about that, what else might he be lying about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been defending Lively. If what’s in Wallace’s declaration is true — that Wallace only monitored and did nothing to influence content — that would be a big blow for her case. Maybe he will even win on the personal jurisdiction argument, and get the case severed to TX.

Curious to me that he says he was working on this from August to November and then suddenly decided to go to NYC in December for two weeks with his family but conducted no business at all there the entire time. Who runs a business single-handedly and then has the ability to turn everything off for two whole weeks and send out zero business related texts, emails, or calls? That seems dodgy to me, and that alone could probably give him minimum NY contacts for jurisdiction for this suit. And, if he’s lying in his declaration about that, what else might he be lying about?

It's very unlikely that he's lying -- he signed this declaration under oath knowing that it would be perjury (a criminal offence) to lie. And it also means that he is quite sure that the other side will not be able to find any evidence whatsoever to disprove him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been defending Lively. If what’s in Wallace’s declaration is true — that Wallace only monitored and did nothing to influence content — that would be a big blow for her case. Maybe he will even win on the personal jurisdiction argument, and get the case severed to TX.

Curious to me that he says he was working on this from August to November and then suddenly decided to go to NYC in December for two weeks with his family but conducted no business at all there the entire time. Who runs a business single-handedly and then has the ability to turn everything off for two whole weeks and send out zero business related texts, emails, or calls? That seems dodgy to me, and that alone could probably give him minimum NY contacts for jurisdiction for this suit. And, if he’s lying in his declaration about that, what else might he be lying about?

The 9th to the 16th is one week, not two, and he went with family. It's really not weird to go on a family vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been defending Lively. If what’s in Wallace’s declaration is true — that Wallace only monitored and did nothing to influence content — that would be a big blow for her case. Maybe he will even win on the personal jurisdiction argument, and get the case severed to TX.

Curious to me that he says he was working on this from August to November and then suddenly decided to go to NYC in December for two weeks with his family but conducted no business at all there the entire time. Who runs a business single-handedly and then has the ability to turn everything off for two whole weeks and send out zero business related texts, emails, or calls? That seems dodgy to me, and that alone could probably give him minimum NY contacts for jurisdiction for this suit. And, if he’s lying in his declaration about that, what else might he be lying about?

The 9th to the 16th is one week, not two, and he went with family. It's really not weird to go on a family vacation.

That’s true, that’s really just 8 days not 14. Sorry. But he runs a business by himself and didn’t send out one business related email or other communication that whole time, or work on his laptop from his hotel at night? Really?

Also, what about the Nathan text from October 8, 2024 that “We’re starting to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team’s efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.” Nathan sure thought Wallace was actively shifting the narrative by October and not just monitoring, so that’s inconsistent.

I would also love to know how and why (as someone here previously reposted from Reddit itself) that posts on Reddit that merely mention Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman in the past have gotten downvoted very quickly, within hours, so that’s inconsistent they don’t get views or attention. Who is arranging that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been defending Lively. If what’s in Wallace’s declaration is true — that Wallace only monitored and did nothing to influence content — that would be a big blow for her case. Maybe he will even win on the personal jurisdiction argument, and get the case severed to TX.

Curious to me that he says he was working on this from August to November and then suddenly decided to go to NYC in December for two weeks with his family but conducted no business at all there the entire time. Who runs a business single-handedly and then has the ability to turn everything off for two whole weeks and send out zero business related texts, emails, or calls? That seems dodgy to me, and that alone could probably give him minimum NY contacts for jurisdiction for this suit. And, if he’s lying in his declaration about that, what else might he be lying about?

The 9th to the 16th is one week, not two, and he went with family. It's really not weird to go on a family vacation.

That’s true, that’s really just 8 days not 14. Sorry. But he runs a business by himself and didn’t send out one business related email or other communication that whole time, or work on his laptop from his hotel at night? Really?

Also, what about the Nathan text from October 8, 2024 that “We’re starting to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team’s efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.” Nathan sure thought Wallace was actively shifting the narrative by October and not just monitoring, so that’s inconsistent.

I would also love to know how and why (as someone here previously reposted from Reddit itself) that posts on Reddit that merely mention Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman in the past have gotten downvoted very quickly, within hours, so that’s inconsistent they don’t get views or attention. Who is arranging that?

Agree that I find Wallace's motion and affidavit to be weird. If true, yeah, huge blow for Lively (though Wallace can't attest to everything Nathan and Abel did, and Lively could still prove retaliation just based on their actions -- Wallace's involvement would help enormously but is probably not required).

But what he is claiming he did for Abel and Nathan doesn't match up with how they talked about his work to Baldoni and Heath. So either Abel and Nathan misled Wayfarer on what Wallace was doing or could do, or he's lying here. I want to say it's unlikely someone would like in a sworn statement like this (you could go to jail for that) so it seems much more likely that Abel and Nathan exaggerated Wallace's abilities and tactics.

At one point in the texts, Nathan mentions that Jamey Heath touched base (or was going to touch base) with Wallace directly. Would be interesting to find out if there is any record of those communications.

I am a little surprised by how Wallace describes his work because, to be honest, it doesn't seem worth what they paid him. If all he was doing was monitoring socials and tracking sentiment online, it seems like kind of a waste. I feel like you could do that with an intern in Nathan's company or something. Does Wallace have proprietary software that offers more insight or something? I don't get it.