Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

She’s already toast. Whoever this poster is knows it, it was just why she keeps posting half truths. She’s getting everything just a little bit wrong.

[Anonymous]

No one is saying her face shouldn’t be on the poster lol. Way to focus on the exact wrong thing. It was supposed to be her and Justin‘s face and she took his face off and she also took a film by him off and she took his name off, but please keep going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

No. There are texts dammit. Blake texted Justin that she wanted Ryan’s company to do the marketing and that they would not charge for it. She said “will keep it in the family.”

That was their arrangement, not Sony. And guess what, she lied and they did charge for it.

Not to mention Wayfarer brought on Sony and Sony had certain obligations to Wayfarer. Justin had to sign away his “film by credit” b/c it was in the contract with Sony but Blake insisted he be taken off. She also couldn’t get the PGA credit without a recommendation from Wayfarer, which they initially rejected to, and when she threatened them (see a pattern) they wrote the recommendation but memorialized in writing that they were doing so under duress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

She’s already toast. Whoever this poster is knows it, it was just why she keeps posting half truths. She’s getting everything just a little bit wrong.

I want to know who this poster is who just kind of twists and turns things to paint this narrative and apparently spends like 16 hours a day including nights and weekends posting these bizarre tomes. "Focus on the lawsuit, it's just getting started!" Blake is done. The lawsuit is basically irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

She’s already toast. Whoever this poster is knows it, it was just why she keeps posting half truths. She’s getting everything just a little bit wrong.

I want to know who this poster is who just kind of twists and turns things to paint this narrative and apparently spends like 16 hours a day including nights and weekends posting these bizarre tomes. "Focus on the lawsuit, it's just getting started!" Blake is done. The lawsuit is basically irrelevant.

Me three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Lively has a history of successfully harassing and threatening people to get her way, with the support of Reynolds. Baldoni and others caved to their demands under duress throughout this production. Lively and Reynolds clearly thought they would up the ante to get the rights to the sequel and everything else they wanted.

They weren't expecting Baldoni to fight back. They again tried to harass and threaten him into giving in to their demands, knowing that they could afford exorbitant legal fees but Baldoni couldn't. The only reason that it didn't work is because Sarowitz agreed to fund Baldoni's legal fees. Now the horrible behavior of Lively and Reynolds and their associates has been exposed in a way that they never intended when they started their hostilities against Baldoni, Heath, and others.

This is my take. I don't think Lively was harassed and I don't think her team is playing some kind of legal jiu jitsu. I think she and Reynolds overplayed their hand and never, ever expected it to get to where we are now (both PR wise and legally) because they thought they had an easy mark to steamroll and destroy. As they themselves have been open about, they've pulled similar moves before. They flexed their power and they did not expect this level of push back from someone they consider a nobody. They wanted total control and rights to the sequel, end of. They were prepared for this to all play out in sick Hollywood PR world and have to be freaking out they've lost that with the public. Again, you can lawyer need out about every motion filed in the lead up to this legal battle, but they've lost the public and the PR war. And that's what you need to maintain celeb status and popularity. If I were Blake or Ryan I'd be flipping my shit right now and it has nothing to do with their lawyers or this case, they shouldn't be in this position in the first place.

+1 I finally read the infamous timeline and it was heartbreaking. There was a point in time during the strike break when BL reached out a few times for the dailies and didn’t get her way, and BL started to escalate from there. It’s pretty hard to read honestly.

She presented the 17 pt complaint and demands for editing and other concessions near simultaneously, which to me really undermines her SH claims. The law requires these claims to be made in good faith and without malice (in other words the goal is supposed to be remedy not to extract something you want from someone else).

From this point fwd JB and BL only interact through Sony, not directly, and she just gets meaner and meaner. Ryan’s marketing firm takes over the promo at a much greater expense than budgeted and they set up all these promo opportunities with the entire cast excluding Justin.

Jen Abel reaches out to Sony multiple times to see how they can include JB to avoid the predictable speculation that would come from this behavior. Saddest of all, JB had thought of this great idea for him to do book Bonanza with Colleen Hoover (before things with BL had soured) but BL even took over that promo engagement too and excluded JB. She takes his face off the poster, his film by credit removed. She threatens TS multiple times (no wonder TS isn’t speaking to her) telling Sony she won’t even make the call to ask for My Tears Richochet if they don’t concede to her demands. Also threatens to not promote the movie if she doesn’t get her edit, which didn’t perform well. She can do all of this because she refused to sign her contract throughout, allowing her to threaten to walk at every turn and waste everyone’s time and money.

The texts between Jen and Melissa, when read in their totality, seem above board. They were pretty much taking a don’t fuel the fire approach and let this die down. Heath shared feedback multiple times with Sony to include more talk of DV in Blake’s PR, so this idea that they set her up to look bad is just unfounded. They recommended adjustments multiple times. It goes on and on, but I think there’s more than enough here to show malice and survive MTD. BL is a horrible person.

It’s hard for me to believe at this point that there are still people who side with her. Because what you described is spot on.

She is very much enabled by her team - there are actually adults who presumably went to law school and likely practiced for many years before working for Blake lively who agreed to send multiple emails, threatening her walk offs, knowing full well they had all the power because she had never signed a contract. I cannot imagine that the management and legal team have any credibility left. But I get that Hollywood plays dirty so maybe this is just another power move and I guess I’m naïve to expect lawyers and management for Blake to play fair or think the rules apply to them.

I do think it’s a bunch of really crappy people who work with her and for her and it explains why they were able to get this far. Someone rationally tried to explain up thread that blake and Ryan knew this was coming because before any sexual harassment suit would be filed, their team would have sat down and calmly explained to them, your texts will be fair game. Your emails will be fair game, this is going to come out, that is going to come out, and they forged ahead anyway. I now do not believe any of that happened. I now believe they have a team who are as blinded by power as they are or at this point they only have people working for them who tell them what they want to hear. They were very ill advised.

You both sound naive to me. I'm an attorney and the stuff in the timeline about her lawyers playing hardball with Wayfarer over her contract does not strike me as out of line. It's aggressive in terms of negotiating, but there are also so many instances of Wayfarer being shady or disorganized that it doesn't really bother me.

In particular, they appear to have been negligent in getting the nudity riders reviewed by an IC and submitted to Lively and Ferrer, in Lively's case not sending her nudity rider to her until days after she was originally supposed to film the first sex scene, in Vegas (this was ultimately postponed until after the hiatus, ostensibly because Lively had a sick family member, but I would believe and have no problem with her lying about a family illness to avoid filming a sex scene before nudity riders were signed -- that's a perfectly reasonable delay tactic IMO because she'd be looking to get a key workplace protection in place before doing a scene that required intimacy and nudity, which carries real risks for an actress in terms of producing footage of your body in compromising situations).

Baldoni was also TERRIBLE at communicating with Blake, often promising her one thing while promising other producers the opposite, and then acting as though the problem was Blake when there is no evidence he ever actually said "no, you cannot do that." In fact on numerous occasions he would tell her she could do something, or even use enthusiastic and encouraging language ("hell yes, please do") all while assuring his producing partners that he was trying to rein her in. It's very hard for me to believe a narrative that Blake somehow plotted all of this from the start when there are texts and emails of her asking politely for certain things (to make a pass at rewriting a scene, to see dailies, etc.) and Baldoni never saying no. And when someone else would tell her no (never Baldoni, he clearly was incapable of setting a boundary with her, which is on him, not her) she would acquiesce. As when she was told she couldn't see dailies.

People seem upset and angry that she was persistent in seeking the influence she wanted to have over the production, or aggressive in her contract negotiations. I have no idea why this would offend people. It's a business, she's using the leverage she has to get the best deal for herself. This is what everyone in the business does. It's also what Baldoni and Heath do. Baldoni has a different style, and frankly one I find way more deceptive than what Lively does. He clearly relies on trying to get the other side to like him, personally, sometimes leaning on telling sob stories about himself to induce sympathy, sometimes just telling the other person exactly what he thinks they want to hear in people pleasing mode (but with the ulterior motive of wanting something specific from them). He did this with Blake but he also did this with Colleen Hoover, promising her a bunch of stuff he probably should not have promised in order to get the rights to the movie (agreeing to star in the movie even though he originally didn't want to, agreeing to give her a lot of veto power over aspects of the script and characters, etc.). It is inevitable that Baldoni gets himself into situations where people are angry with him because he over promises and under delivers, over and over again. He compulsively agrees with people but lacks much courage of conviction, and essentially tries to get what he wants by being pleasing and weasely.

Give me Blake's straightforward, if sometimes pushy and demanding, asks any day of the week. She's not manipulative. She's literally like "can I do this? I would like to do XYZ, is that okay?" And sure, she'll have her team apply pressure if she thinks it will help, but she will also accept a no when she gets one.

Note that when she got angry with him over the rooftop scene, it wasn't because they didn't want to use the version she sent him. It's because he was wishy washy and indirect about it, talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling her how great it was but then making no commitments. She read this as a condescending pat on the head because it was.

I will say that both Lively and Baldoni made mistakes in their communication because they were both trying to preserve their character chemistry, and I'm sympathetic to both of them about that. BUT I also view that as the result of Wayfarer's boneheaded choice to have Baldoni direct and star. This was stupid and I think they knew that before they made the choice -- Baldoni was originally not set to direct and had even said publicly that he though a woman should direct it because of the content matter, only to then reneg on this later even as he was also promising Hoover he would play the Ryle role. Another example of Wayfarer being messy and dysfunctional in ways that had serious consequences for the production, but then later trying to blame Lively for the problems it caused. Baldoni had no business directing this movie and they knew it, but they had him do it anyway. Huge mistake.

Literally a whole page supporting Blake and how Baldoni was wrong at every turn. Tell us your her lawyer without telling us you are her lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

She’s already toast. Whoever this poster is knows it, it was just why she keeps posting half truths. She’s getting everything just a little bit wrong.

I want to know who this poster is who just kind of twists and turns things to paint this narrative and apparently spends like 16 hours a day including nights and weekends posting these bizarre tomes. "Focus on the lawsuit, it's just getting started!" Blake is done. The lawsuit is basically irrelevant.

Me three.

Has to be a group of law students or paid associates for BL/RR. No one, I mean no one outside of BL’s team would spend this much nonstop, second by second, day by day energy trying to debunk and pro Baldini argument like a whack a mole the way this person(s) do. Before you can hit the return button, they are already responding with a 6 paragraph counter to each point presented, as though a lack of immediate opposition Will sentence them to eternal hell.

Boots has bought herself some dcum bots!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

She’s already toast. Whoever this poster is knows it, it was just why she keeps posting half truths. She’s getting everything just a little bit wrong.

I want to know who this poster is who just kind of twists and turns things to paint this narrative and apparently spends like 16 hours a day including nights and weekends posting these bizarre tomes. "Focus on the lawsuit, it's just getting started!" Blake is done. The lawsuit is basically irrelevant.

Me three.

This will change no one's mind, but fwiw.

I am NOT the PP you're taunting above. I'm PP who was going off about the protective order several pages ago. You know, where Team Baldoni (plus someone who says actually they're not on any team at all) said actually nobody won the protective order battle except maybe the PR firms or that Baldoni/Freedman won it. The protective order battle is actually the one I've followed most closely in this entire case. I read all the motions etc, I listened to the hearing (and summarized it here), and I read the resulting order. You all are just wrong. I'm a lawyer and Lively absolutely won that battle. If you actually looked at the underlying papers and the judge's order, or read the hearing transcript and compared that to the order, you would see how Lively's atty got almost-but-not-quite every single thing she argued for during the hearing. This would be obvious to you, as it is to me.

But you guys aren't saying that, and the Two Lawyers aren't saying that. I don't know why. Maybe it doesn't get them the clicks that negative news about Lively does, or maybe they spend so much time podcasting that they don't really read the underlying papers much -- from the podcast it didn't sound like they listened to the hearing at all.

I haven't been following PP's arguments over the last two pages, but Team Baldoni has a POV on all this and it doesn't necessarily match reality. So you may be right about some things, I have no idea, but I won't trust anything you say unless I've checked it myself. Because you are ingesting alternative facts or shading somewhere and taking them as truth, when they obviously are not true.

I mean, I know you think I'm just wrong. Fine. But my experience on the PO has shown me that sometimes the real docs and real facts differ from what is coming out on social media or whatever, and Team Baldoni is not dealing with or acknowledging the truth.

I am not rehashing the protective order battle again. I've explained over and over how Lively won that and posted plenty information (including quoting from the judge's order, and Freedman's papers) re why and how. I'm not trying to reopen that discussion, so don't accuse me of that.

I'm saying your failure to accept reality on the PO, which I am now thoroughly familiar with, suggests that you're probably favoring Baldoni/Freedman elsewhere, too. You're skewing things and you don't realize it. So good luck with that. Enjoy your Saturday.

[Anonymous]

Boots!

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2F1s%2F2023%2F06%2F10%2F09%2F71980707-12180405-image-a-1_1686384270316.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e81309d109c79ca89cc46fef63be022dca79c9add92705539beb6e6f0bcf1fc1&ipo=images

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.

Another way she tried to control the narrative was by isolating Justin. When Ryan’s company took over the marketing, they started reaching out to the cast directly. Wayfarer wasn’t informed at all and Sony was only tangentially kept in the loop. For example, for one of the events, BL reached out to the cast directly and paid for their travel and lodging. Sony found out after the fact.

Meant to add here that she spent lots of time with the cast marketing the film without JB. This is for sure when she turned them against him. I’m sure discovery will show this.

What part of that is actionable though? Baldoni's theory seems to be that she was manufacturing this complaints of SH and he subjectively felt that he had to give in to her demands because she might make her grievances known, but doesn't there need to be a more explicit threat for extortion?

Yes, and importantly, in order to prove extortion, you need to prove that you received something of value (money, goods, or services) in exchange. They have never identify what, exactly, Lively extorted from them.

They also just skip over the part where Lively made multiple real time complaints about the alleged harassment, there were multiple meetings, starting on the second day of filming, about addressing it, and Baldoni repeatedly promised to address her concerns but then additional issues would arise. You can't extort someone with SH if the claims of SH are valid.

In any case, the extortion claims are probably going to be dismissed because they haven't plead them correctly at all, likely don't have the facts to plead them correctly, and if California law is viewed as controlling, it's not even a valid tort. And if extortion falls, so will the tortious interference claim, which is dependent.

Alternative facts. She received lots of things of value, including Ryan’s firm getting the marketing (a paid gig), her editor (another paid gig), she got a few people fired (one before the 17pt complaint and one after), her face on the poster, an unearned PGA credit and on and on. And there’s lots of evidence suggestion her ultimate goal was the rights to the sequel, and the nyt complaint was supposed to be the final nail in Baldoni’s coffin to get it her there. There were also not not multiple real time meetings about SH. What are you talking about?

Ryan's firm did the marketing at Sony's request -- Sony was the distributor and in charge of the marketing. So that's not something they "extorted" from Wayfarer, who was never in charge of marketing.

The editor she helped hire was hired to fix perceived issues with Baldoni's edit. Again, hired by Sony as distributing studio. And unless you can prove the editor kicked back their fee to Lively, that's not extortion.

She was the star of the movie, and her character was the main character. In what world is "her face on the poster" something she extorted out of these people. They hired her explicitly to put her face on the poster! Unreal.

The p.g.a. credit was not Wayfarer's to give. She also received no additional money for getting it. She believed her work on the movie, and in particular her work in securing a safe set for her and the rest of the cast for the second half of filming, as well as to secure a top regarded editor to do the studio edit and get Taylor Swift to agree to provide a hit song for the movie's soundtrack, merited a p.g.a. credit. You might disagree, Baldoni might disagree, but ultimately it was the Producer's Guild that awarded the credit, and it was not Wayfarer's to give.

And yes, there were multiple complaints and discussions regarding Baldoni's behavior on set. These were not framed as "sexual harassment meetings" because Blake was NOT actually plotting to "steal" the movie (a movie, by the way, that Wayfarer still owns and that Baldoni is the listed director for), but because these meetings were called to address problems Blake had with Baldoni's and Heath's behavior. Including the meeting on the third day of filming that actually led to another problematic behavior (Heath insisting on a meeting while Blake was topless and then peeking at her even after agreeing to face away since she could not put a top on at the moment while the makeup artists worked and she was nursing). That meeting was called to address issues with Baldoni coming and crying at her in her trailer on day two. Lively also expressed her objections to the sudden suggestion she be nude for the birth scene on the day that it happened and there was a meeting to discuss it, where a compromise of partial simulated nudity was reached. And so on. None of the things Blake complained about were invented or a surprise to Wayfarer. She had been lodging complaints about this behavior throughout the production.

These responses are wild. Hope BL’s lawyer can come up with a better defense or she’s toast.

She’s already toast. Whoever this poster is knows it, it was just why she keeps posting half truths. She’s getting everything just a little bit wrong.

I want to know who this poster is who just kind of twists and turns things to paint this narrative and apparently spends like 16 hours a day including nights and weekends posting these bizarre tomes. "Focus on the lawsuit, it's just getting started!" Blake is done. The lawsuit is basically irrelevant.

Me three.

Has to be a group of law students or paid associates for BL/RR. No one, I mean no one outside of BL’s team would spend this much nonstop, second by second, day by day energy trying to debunk and pro Baldini argument like a whack a mole the way this person(s) do. Before you can hit the return button, they are already responding with a 6 paragraph counter to each point presented, as though a lack of immediate opposition Will sentence them to eternal hell.

Boots has bought herself some dcum bots!

This. Agree. And the poster who keeps going back to the PO again and again is particularly obviously a BL troll.

[Anonymous]

BF’s reasons for not filing an MTD.

“We strategically made decisions to file answers to these complaints,” the Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley LLP co-founder stated. “This is not because we do not have grounds to file motions to dismiss but because in this day of courts giving wide discretion for leave to amend, we are not interested in providing them with a chance to learn just how poorly their legal theory has been drafted and a road map on how to correct it.”

Freedman added: “We would rather lock them into their deficiently drafted complaints and thus, force them to proceed through the case with lawsuits that are replete with glaringly legal and factual problems. Ryan and Blake are going to have to dance with the one that brought them here and if they expect us to help educate them on how to do this properly then they are going to the hardware store for milk”.

[Anonymous]

It’s sassy for sure, but it doesn’t really fit with his own kind of terribly pled complaint and attachment of “facts.” You’d expect the guy who said the above to understand what they themselves need to plead. He doesn’t seem to.

Alternatively, maybe he’s just a bit too lazy to prep all those MTDs and doesn’t think their case will go to trial. Answers are much easier, deny or lack info or belief etc.

Almost nothing would convince me at this point that Freedman isn’t an ego driven jerk who lies as second nature. Every time he speaks he needs to insult the other side. He’s a child in a suit.

[Anonymous]

Okay. Read that BL/RR won’t be attending the Met Gala this year. Was there no invite or have they decided to not attend after the whole SNL mess?

Stopwatch is ready!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay. Read that BL/RR won’t be attending the Met Gala this year. Was there no invite or have they decided to not attend after the whole SNL mess?

Stopwatch is ready!

They haven't gone since 2022. There was no reason to expect them to go, and it probably works to their advantage to have an excuse not to go -- it's not a great time for displays of excess.

[Anonymous]

Ladies! Everyone has forgotten about this mess/is over it except you!!