Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did talk about it when it happened, pages ago. Other things got filed since then. I already reported the news about Baldoni’s answer and the judge denying Sloane’s motion for stay a page or two ago (keep up PP lol!), but hadn’t seen the countersuit of Jones.

I think it’s more interesting that what some of you have been claiming for literally hundreds of pages, that Wallace was using bots to plant negative stories about Blake, was debunked by his sworn testimony. Way more worthy of discussion than a discovery stay or non stay.

I posted yesterday that I usually defended Lively but found the declaration, if true, bad news for her case. But it does conflict, a lot, with what Baldoni’s own PR reps thought and said that Jed — and his team — were doing, so from my perspective even though it’s sworn it’s a little hard to believe. And also, why are posts about Freedman and Wallace downvoted so fast on Reddit if Wallace doesn’t have a team doing stuff under the radar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did talk about it when it happened, pages ago. Other things got filed since then. I already reported the news about Baldoni’s answer and the judge denying Sloane’s motion for stay a page or two ago (keep up PP lol!), but hadn’t seen the countersuit of Jones.

I think it’s more interesting that what some of you have been claiming for literally hundreds of pages, that Wallace was using bots to plant negative stories about Blake, was debunked by his sworn testimony. Way more worthy of discussion than a discovery stay or non stay.

I posted yesterday that I usually defended Lively but found the declaration, if true, bad news for her case. But it does conflict, a lot, with what Baldoni’s own PR reps thought and said that Jed — and his team — were doing, so from my perspective even though it’s sworn it’s a little hard to believe. And also, why are posts about Freedman and Wallace downvoted so fast on Reddit if Wallace doesn’t have a team doing stuff under the radar?

I think we’ll just have to wait for discovery. This all sound like conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did talk about it when it happened, pages ago. Other things got filed since then. I already reported the news about Baldoni’s answer and the judge denying Sloane’s motion for stay a page or two ago (keep up PP lol!), but hadn’t seen the countersuit of Jones.

I think it’s more interesting that what some of you have been claiming for literally hundreds of pages, that Wallace was using bots to plant negative stories about Blake, was debunked by his sworn testimony. Way more worthy of discussion than a discovery stay or non stay.

I posted yesterday that I usually defended Lively but found the declaration, if true, bad news for her case. But it does conflict, a lot, with what Baldoni’s own PR reps thought and said that Jed — and his team — were doing, so from my perspective even though it’s sworn it’s a little hard to believe. And also, why are posts about Freedman and Wallace downvoted so fast on Reddit if Wallace doesn’t have a team doing stuff under the radar?

Idk, probably some diehard Baldoni fans. I tend to doubt grand conspiracy theories about paying for Reddit down votes.

Also, sworn testimony is sworn testimony and this is testimony freely given. Very little chance anything in that affidavit is untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ryan acted as a loving spouse toward Lively in trying to get self-proclaimed male feminist Baldoni from stopping with the weirdly intimate questions and inexplicable extra-extra nakedness and sex scenes he was stubbornly insistent on requiring from Lively for his PG-13 movie.

You are one of the only ones who feels that way, it is certainly not a popular public narrative. Sorry. I feel like there was a time at the beginning of this with the whole fat shaming thing people were on ryans side for standing up for her, but I think as more news came out about him berating and threatening Justin and having the Sony executive quit because he never seen anything like it, people are now viewing Ryan as much more controlling and unhinged.

The defenders of Blake that I see online basically want her to be the feminist hero who is using her power to hold a man accountable. But I don’t see any defense of Ryan in this narrative because it gets in the way of the Blake as feminist hero story, considering how much she leveraged her very powerful husband at every turn, whether to convince Justin to use the rooftop scene that she didn’t even write, getting him to write the rooftop scene, Using the editors from his successful franchise to edit the film, and even hiring his market for him to market the film. It’s not a very attractive narrative so no, I have not seen public sentiment about Ryan being a supportive, loving spouse.

A lot of people think he threw her under the bus at SNL too. And he didn’t show up for her latest movie premiere. Looks like Us Weeky, famous for being kind to Ryan Reynolds, featured them as their cover story this week and from the cover it does not look kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

I think it’s just that there was so much news yesterday, so his motion didn’t get much attention. But it was compelling. Seems plausible that this entire smear campaign never happened, Blake is just not well liked. But b/c she’s a narcissist she believed that the bad press had to be artificial and now she’s ruined a man’s life.

And without a smear campaign, she literally has no case.

I think the Wallace affidavit is a huge blow for Lively, but I don't know that it means she has "no case." I think it undercuts her argument about the degree of any smear campaign and could seriously undermine her ability recover damages. But that aspect of her complaint was novel and untested anyway. Plenty of people win cases for SH/retaliation where the defendant didn't hire someone to astroturf Reddit against them. If Lively can show that Abel and Nathan planted negative stories about her in the media, especially if she can show that Wayfarer's goal in hiring Nathan and going on the attack was to discredit her so that if she came forward with allegations, she would be less likely to be believed, she still has a very strong case.

The text messages between Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni are already very strong evidence of retaliation, even if Jed Wallace can prove he didn't participate in a campaign against her.

That may be your beliefs, but there are dozens and dozens of posts here accusing Wallace of dirty tactics and claiming Blake’s case was unstoppable once she inevitably got her hands on discovery proving this. Crickets from these folks not a coincidence.

[Anonymous]

On the Wallace thing, an interesting tidbit is in Abel's answer paragraph 222, she says "that TAG erroneously stated in its answer to Lively’s initial complaint that TAG retained Wallace."

[Anonymous]

What do you mean, crickets? You have two people here admitting the declaration is tough for Lively. That’s more than Baldoni supporters have admitted whenever Freedman did something stupid lol.

[Anonymous]

Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean, crickets? You have two people here admitting the declaration is tough for Lively. That’s more than Baldoni supporters have admitted whenever Freedman did something stupid lol.

There is a difference between damning sworn testimony and disagreeing with a lawyer’s drafting style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

I think it’s just that there was so much news yesterday, so his motion didn’t get much attention. But it was compelling. Seems plausible that this entire smear campaign never happened, Blake is just not well liked. But b/c she’s a narcissist she believed that the bad press had to be artificial and now she’s ruined a man’s life.

And without a smear campaign, she literally has no case.

I think the Wallace affidavit is a huge blow for Lively, but I don't know that it means she has "no case." I think it undercuts her argument about the degree of any smear campaign and could seriously undermine her ability recover damages. But that aspect of her complaint was novel and untested anyway. Plenty of people win cases for SH/retaliation where the defendant didn't hire someone to astroturf Reddit against them. If Lively can show that Abel and Nathan planted negative stories about her in the media, especially if she can show that Wayfarer's goal in hiring Nathan and going on the attack was to discredit her so that if she came forward with allegations, she would be less likely to be believed, she still has a very strong case.

The text messages between Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni are already very strong evidence of retaliation, even if Jed Wallace can prove he didn't participate in a campaign against her.

That may be your beliefs, but there are dozens and dozens of posts here accusing Wallace of dirty tactics and claiming Blake’s case was unstoppable once she inevitably got her hands on discovery proving this. Crickets from these folks not a coincidence.

Wallace is a sketchy guy though who has a history of lying or bending the truth to evade liability. From a Business Insider profile of him:

In 2020, Paramount Pictures hired Wallace to oversee a substance-abuse treatment program for Margera, a stuntman who was part of the "Jackass" franchise. In his lawsuit against Paramount, which was eventually settled on undisclosed terms, Margera said that Paramount required him to participate in the program in order to remain involved in the production of the movie "Jackass Forever." The lawsuit says Wallace assembled a team that included his client Heather Hayes.

Margera alleged that the treatment program was "psychological torture," comparing it to Britney Spears' conservatorship. He said he was required to have daily FaceTime calls with Wallace, during which Margera had to take "a cocktail of pills" that left him "physically and mentally drained, depressed, and a shell of his former self."

At the time, Margera believed that Wallace had the final say on which medications were prescribed to him based on Wallace's "repeated statements" that he was in charge of the program, per the complaint. But Wallace was not qualified to manage his treatment program, Margera said later in his lawsuit. Wallace didn't have the bachelor's degree in biology from Fordham that he claimed to have, the complaint says. In a supplemental declaration, Wallace called the suggestion that he had lied "offensive and irresponsible." He told the court he'd dropped out of Fordham due to a "family emergency" and transferred to the University of Scranton. His "understanding," he said, was that he had fulfilled Fordham's graduation requirements.

Fordham confirmed to BI that Wallace attended between 1989 and 1993 but did not graduate.

It's not like he's some nice man with a great record who has been dragged into this whole thing unfairly. He's sketchy and weird and has a history of lying, fudging his background, and doing deeply unethical and questionable things.

So it's not totally off-base to think he may have done something wrong in the Lively/Baldoni matter, especially when there are texts between Abel and Nathan talking up what a great job Wallace was doing pushing anti-Lively content online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

I think it’s just that there was so much news yesterday, so his motion didn’t get much attention. But it was compelling. Seems plausible that this entire smear campaign never happened, Blake is just not well liked. But b/c she’s a narcissist she believed that the bad press had to be artificial and now she’s ruined a man’s life.

And without a smear campaign, she literally has no case.

I think the Wallace affidavit is a huge blow for Lively, but I don't know that it means she has "no case." I think it undercuts her argument about the degree of any smear campaign and could seriously undermine her ability recover damages. But that aspect of her complaint was novel and untested anyway. Plenty of people win cases for SH/retaliation where the defendant didn't hire someone to astroturf Reddit against them. If Lively can show that Abel and Nathan planted negative stories about her in the media, especially if she can show that Wayfarer's goal in hiring Nathan and going on the attack was to discredit her so that if she came forward with allegations, she would be less likely to be believed, she still has a very strong case.

The text messages between Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni are already very strong evidence of retaliation, even if Jed Wallace can prove he didn't participate in a campaign against her.

That may be your beliefs, but there are dozens and dozens of posts here accusing Wallace of dirty tactics and claiming Blake’s case was unstoppable once she inevitably got her hands on discovery proving this. Crickets from these folks not a coincidence.

Wallace is a sketchy guy though who has a history of lying or bending the truth to evade liability. From a Business Insider profile of him:

In 2020, Paramount Pictures hired Wallace to oversee a substance-abuse treatment program for Margera, a stuntman who was part of the "Jackass" franchise. In his lawsuit against Paramount, which was eventually settled on undisclosed terms, Margera said that Paramount required him to participate in the program in order to remain involved in the production of the movie "Jackass Forever." The lawsuit says Wallace assembled a team that included his client Heather Hayes.

Margera alleged that the treatment program was "psychological torture," comparing it to Britney Spears' conservatorship. He said he was required to have daily FaceTime calls with Wallace, during which Margera had to take "a cocktail of pills" that left him "physically and mentally drained, depressed, and a shell of his former self."

At the time, Margera believed that Wallace had the final say on which medications were prescribed to him based on Wallace's "repeated statements" that he was in charge of the program, per the complaint. But Wallace was not qualified to manage his treatment program, Margera said later in his lawsuit. Wallace didn't have the bachelor's degree in biology from Fordham that he claimed to have, the complaint says. In a supplemental declaration, Wallace called the suggestion that he had lied "offensive and irresponsible." He told the court he'd dropped out of Fordham due to a "family emergency" and transferred to the University of Scranton. His "understanding," he said, was that he had fulfilled Fordham's graduation requirements.

Fordham confirmed to BI that Wallace attended between 1989 and 1993 but did not graduate.

It's not like he's some nice man with a great record who has been dragged into this whole thing unfairly. He's sketchy and weird and has a history of lying, fudging his background, and doing deeply unethical and questionable things.

So it's not totally off-base to think he may have done something wrong in the Lively/Baldoni matter, especially when there are texts between Abel and Nathan talking up what a great job Wallace was doing pushing anti-Lively content online.

This is Hollywood PR. I don’t think anyone ever thought Jed was anything other than shady. They are all shady as hell. Jones is being sued because she lied about a subpoena and just blatantly gave someone texts she wasn’t supposed to give for nothing other than revenge and she was clearly having some sort of breakdown. Sloane is notorious for covering for Harvey Weinstein for years and she acts like she’s cooperating with Baldoni’s team for the good of the movie and then immediately is going behind their back to get better press for Blake.

I don’t know why we’d be surprised to find out that Jed wasn’t doing that much but Nathan and Abel were trying to take credit so they were just blowing smoke up Justin’s ass and saying yeah we’re doing a lot. I mean that is what these firms do.

They are all super shady. The only interesting thing is can they find Jed doing something illegal? That’s the only thing that matters. Im guessing he believes they won’t and I’m inclined to agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.