Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP with numbered list. I can also imagine another side where she is a diva mean girl that he doesn’t quite know how to deal with. Like, I can see this through that lens also. If that’s the truth then you called this better than me. But I also hate Freedman and right now I see theough her lens.

Thanks for asking and also explaining your pov!

This list goes wrong for me at #4. Telling Baldoni she felt uncomfortable and asking for changes going forward—no problem. Using those claims (regardless of their veracity) to make the movie she wanted to make is where it goes off the rails for me. SH should not be used as leverage, full stop.

PP w/ list. I get that. And I understand view of her as a villain. To me, she thought she was saving the film. How could she promote this film as she promised if not-real-feminist director makes its message that DV husbands are sympathetic hunks? And like PP maybe says, threat was failure to promote, not to release SH claims. But agree to disagree! Enough from me for a while.

I agree that it's an open question whether she sought control over the editing/Final Cut of the film because either:

1) She was greedy and power mad, wanted to use the movie as a springboard to being considered a legitimate producer and potentially director for other projects, and she and Reynolds plotted this all along,

OR

2) She became alarmed during the filming of the movie about how her character would be portrayed, how Baldoni's character would be portrayed, and how the sex scenes featuring both her and the actress playing the younger version of the chacracer would be handled in editing, and therefore fought for creative control over the Final Cut of the movie, and lobbied Sony on these specific issues, because she was worried about appearing in a movie that could wind up being an apologia for abusers or that could be seen as anti-feminist and problematic.

I see arguments for both. There's a possibility it's actually a bit of a combination of both. I think likely there is evidence to come that will shed light on this, including especially evidence and testimony regarding Lively's communications with Sony during the editing phase of the movie. It really appears to me that Sony essentially handed over control of the movie to Lively during the spring of 2024. Did that happen because they were afraid of Reynolds and were just trying to appease him/protect their relationship with him and other people connected to him? Or did Lively make a case for why it was important to hand over control of the movie to a woman and to ensure that the final product had a feminist message that was empowering (as much for marketing reasons as political reasons -- this was always a movie with a primarily female audience and they knew that audience would buy feminist empowerment because of Barbie, whereas there was no evidence women would be eager to buy a movie that was about how maybe abusers can be saved)?

I don't think it's possible to know the answer to this now but when communications between Lively and Sony come out, as well as when Sony execs are deposed/testify, this question could be answered.

I think this question is answered by the numerous emails between Baldoni and Hoover and the obvious disconnect between how Baldoni envisioned promoting the film and how Lively did. I do not for one second think Lively thought she was doing some feminist good and Baldoni had any intention of this being apologetic towards abusers. He was the one who very clearly thought this was a movie about domestic violence and worked through his vision for the film with Hoover. Lively, who we should not forget DIDN'T EVEN READ THE BOOK, was the one who wanted to bill and promote the film as a fun, flirty rom-com and seemed deeply uncomfortable with anyone bringing up the more serious themes of abuse in the plot. She was constantly pushing back that abuse was any significant part of the movie and really wanted this to be some "wear your florals!" fun time movie to see with your girlfriends. Saying Baldoni aimed to produce some kind of male abuser is redeemed narrative is basically slanderous after we have seen the emails and texts where he is very clear that he respects the source material and the delicate nature of what is being filmed while Lively is extremely flippant on that.

The naming the drink after the abuser, it’s like she got no media training. They tried to explain it by saying Sony wanted to keep it light, but you should not be out in public talking to a big audience about a movie like this without getting some basic media training. This was just a huge failure, and at every turn instead of responding to the criticism, they seemed to double down.

[Anonymous]

Pro Baldoni poster again.

You keep forgetting that Baldoni is the Director of the film. Like any job, you have a boss. They may be wonderful or incompetent or severely lacking in one area or another. But they are the boss and they hired you. Employment contracts work two ways. You can agree to perform the job with that boss in charge, or you can find a new job more to your liking. That applied to Blake and all others who were not satisfied with Baldoni.

I have zero support for Blake as an actor thinking that she alone could save this movie. It was not hers to rewrite scenes for, it was not hers to save. She executed prima donna moves and pushed her Khalessi backed authority to get what she wanted, which was more input, control and authority at every turn. In a normal business environment, her actions would have caused her to get fired or demoted or transferred out and definitely blacklisted.

I strongly disagree with the assertions that ‘she “had to step in and save the movie her way.’” Let the movie fail because then it would have reflected on Baldoni’s
/Director’s shortcomings, which is where it should fall. But sorry Lively supporters, Blake aimed to take over as much as she could, which she said she would. And even when she agreed to let audiences decided, she still wanted her edit to prevail, reneging on her promise. Disguising it as anything else is shameful.

Can we as employees go over the heads of our bosses whenever we feel like we have a better vision or strategy for a project or task? Or would we be shown the door by our bosses for trying to usurp the chain of command in management? Blake and Ryan had plenty of dollars and plenty of influence to direct their own film together and to see their own visions thru. It was just more enticing and easier to attach themselves to a feminist cause which they hoped would blow up the box office like Margot’s Barbie.

Blake wanted to be a hero here. I sincerely believe that this was always some part of the plan for her. Makes sense if they wanted the whole Barbie/Oppenheimer thing with Deadpool and IEWU. She really is that transparent, and has supported this view in countless interviews. She has said that this is who she is. Believe her.

It just angers me that she used an issue like sexual harassment and has made a mockery of it.

I want her to produce receipts to prove that she has concrete evidence of his harassment, and to prove all of us Baldoni supporters wrong. Gathering another co-worker to say “yep, I thought he/they were weird for paying my rent when I complained about it,” just doesn’t cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP with numbered list. I can also imagine another side where she is a diva mean girl that he doesn’t quite know how to deal with. Like, I can see this through that lens also. If that’s the truth then you called this better than me. But I also hate Freedman and right now I see theough her lens.

Thanks for asking and also explaining your pov!

This list goes wrong for me at #4. Telling Baldoni she felt uncomfortable and asking for changes going forward—no problem. Using those claims (regardless of their veracity) to make the movie she wanted to make is where it goes off the rails for me. SH should not be used as leverage, full stop.

PP w/ list. I get that. And I understand view of her as a villain. To me, she thought she was saving the film. How could she promote this film as she promised if not-real-feminist director makes its message that DV husbands are sympathetic hunks? And like PP maybe says, threat was failure to promote, not to release SH claims. But agree to disagree! Enough from me for a while.

I agree that it's an open question whether she sought control over the editing/Final Cut of the film because either:

1) She was greedy and power mad, wanted to use the movie as a springboard to being considered a legitimate producer and potentially director for other projects, and she and Reynolds plotted this all along,

OR

2) She became alarmed during the filming of the movie about how her character would be portrayed, how Baldoni's character would be portrayed, and how the sex scenes featuring both her and the actress playing the younger version of the chacracer would be handled in editing, and therefore fought for creative control over the Final Cut of the movie, and lobbied Sony on these specific issues, because she was worried about appearing in a movie that could wind up being an apologia for abusers or that could be seen as anti-feminist and problematic.

I see arguments for both. There's a possibility it's actually a bit of a combination of both. I think likely there is evidence to come that will shed light on this, including especially evidence and testimony regarding Lively's communications with Sony during the editing phase of the movie. It really appears to me that Sony essentially handed over control of the movie to Lively during the spring of 2024. Did that happen because they were afraid of Reynolds and were just trying to appease him/protect their relationship with him and other people connected to him? Or did Lively make a case for why it was important to hand over control of the movie to a woman and to ensure that the final product had a feminist message that was empowering (as much for marketing reasons as political reasons -- this was always a movie with a primarily female audience and they knew that audience would buy feminist empowerment because of Barbie, whereas there was no evidence women would be eager to buy a movie that was about how maybe abusers can be saved)?

I don't think it's possible to know the answer to this now but when communications between Lively and Sony come out, as well as when Sony execs are deposed/testify, this question could be answered.

I think this question is answered by the numerous emails between Baldoni and Hoover and the obvious disconnect between how Baldoni envisioned promoting the film and how Lively did. I do not for one second think Lively thought she was doing some feminist good and Baldoni had any intention of this being apologetic towards abusers. He was the one who very clearly thought this was a movie about domestic violence and worked through his vision for the film with Hoover. Lively, who we should not forget DIDN'T EVEN READ THE BOOK, was the one who wanted to bill and promote the film as a fun, flirty rom-com and seemed deeply uncomfortable with anyone bringing up the more serious themes of abuse in the plot. She was constantly pushing back that abuse was any significant part of the movie and really wanted this to be some "wear your florals!" fun time movie to see with your girlfriends. Saying Baldoni aimed to produce some kind of male abuser is redeemed narrative is basically slanderous after we have seen the emails and texts where he is very clear that he respects the source material and the delicate nature of what is being filmed while Lively is extremely flippant on that.

This view of Lively’s understanding of the film does not match up with her (I thought) actually eloquent, off the cuff summary of the film at one of the showings where she explains the film is about the Lily the whole woman and is not reduced to Lily DV victim. I know someone else here shortened her statement to “film is not about DV” - which shows how reductive/unfair people can be to Lively on this.

She was instructed by promotional team not to push DV message so she didn’t. And the film unexpectedly made $350M so maybe trying to make it into a fun girls night out event was the right call actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro Baldoni poster again.

You keep forgetting that Baldoni is the Director of the film. Like any job, you have a boss. They may be wonderful or incompetent or severely lacking in one area or another. But they are the boss and they hired you. Employment contracts work two ways. You can agree to perform the job with that boss in charge, or you can find a new job more to your liking. That applied to Blake and all others who were not satisfied with Baldoni.

I have zero support for Blake as an actor thinking that she alone could save this movie. It was not hers to rewrite scenes for, it was not hers to save. She executed prima donna moves and pushed her Khalessi backed authority to get what she wanted, which was more input, control and authority at every turn. In a normal business environment, her actions would have caused her to get fired or demoted or transferred out and definitely blacklisted.

I strongly disagree with the assertions that ‘she “had to step in and save the movie her way.’” Let the movie fail because then it would have reflected on Baldoni’s
/Director’s shortcomings, which is where it should fall. But sorry Lively supporters, Blake aimed to take over as much as she could, which she said she would. And even when she agreed to let audiences decided, she still wanted her edit to prevail, reneging on her promise. Disguising it as anything else is shameful.

Can we as employees go over the heads of our bosses whenever we feel like we have a better vision or strategy for a project or task? Or would we be shown the door by our bosses for trying to usurp the chain of command in management? Blake and Ryan had plenty of dollars and plenty of influence to direct their own film together and to see their own visions thru. It was just more enticing and easier to attach themselves to a feminist cause which they hoped would blow up the box office like Margot’s Barbie.

Blake wanted to be a hero here. I sincerely believe that this was always some part of the plan for her. Makes sense if they wanted the whole Barbie/Oppenheimer thing with Deadpool and IEWU. She really is that transparent, and has supported this view in countless interviews. She has said that this is who she is. Believe her.

It just angers me that she used an issue like sexual harassment and has made a mockery of it.

I want her to produce receipts to prove that she has concrete evidence of his harassment, and to prove all of us Baldoni supporters wrong. Gathering another co-worker to say “yep, I thought he/they were weird for paying my rent when I complained about it,” just doesn’t cut it.

Moreover, for arguments sake, let’s say Baldoni is doing a lot of the things she alleges (which so far have been unsubstantiated or proven false). Can someone explain to me why she would choose to make this so public, and not try to handle thru other means?

And then all of the mockery with Nicepool, etc. How do you have the ability to laugh and demean about such a sensitive issue? I just don’t buy it. I need receipts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro Baldoni poster again.

You keep forgetting that Baldoni is the Director of the film. Like any job, you have a boss. They may be wonderful or incompetent or severely lacking in one area or another. But they are the boss and they hired you. Employment contracts work two ways. You can agree to perform the job with that boss in charge, or you can find a new job more to your liking. That applied to Blake and all others who were not satisfied with Baldoni.

I have zero support for Blake as an actor thinking that she alone could save this movie. It was not hers to rewrite scenes for, it was not hers to save. She executed prima donna moves and pushed her Khalessi backed authority to get what she wanted, which was more input, control and authority at every turn. In a normal business environment, her actions would have caused her to get fired or demoted or transferred out and definitely blacklisted.

I remember when Edward Norton essentially took over The Hulk. He had a tough time after it bombed, but he’s still a working actor in Hollywood producing his own projects. When you’re a man, seems like you don’t get blacklisted. By contrast, this movie made $350m and everyone’s rich, and there’s strong evidence in texts of a smear, but everyone still hates her.

[Anonymous]

Why would she make it public? Because of the smear. Once she believed there was a smear, after he said he wouldn’t retaliate, the reason to go public was to make the smear stop and show that smear campaigns happened in the business and had probably hurt other me too victims like Amber Heard (same PR firm), but were not known to the public. But okay I’m stepping off now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would she make it public? Because of the smear. Once she believed there was a smear, after he said he wouldn’t retaliate, the reason to go public was to make the smear stop and show that smear campaigns happened in the business and had probably hurt other me too victims like Amber Heard (same PR firm), but were not known to the public. But okay I’m stepping off now.

I think when PP said make it public she was talking well before this lawsuit. They started the marketing of this movie icing Justin out. The maximum effort produced marketing was done weeks before the premiere. Before the premier Blake and Ryan made a conscious effort to fly Brandon and Isabella on their own dime to certain events and have time alone with them and do promos without Justin.

This is what started the whole thing. People were like why are they doing separate marketing events for this film and why is nobody being seen with Justin? So she didn’t make it public after the smear, she made it public and he hired the PR firm because she was smearing him.

I don’t know if he made the rest of the cast uncomfortable, sounds like he probably did some things that did that, but I don’t think they crossed the line of sexual harassment and I think the cast would’ve followed Blake’s lead and acted professionally for the good of the film if she had not smeared him. I also have some doubts given the supportive text Isabella sent, and the panel where she and Brandon spoke really highly about him before all this mess started.

That is one of the things I think we will find out in trial. If people are deposed, we will possibly hear about side conversations, or texts that Blake sent to try to turn the cast against him. Or conversely, we will hear them say that they felt really uncomfortable on that, in a way that would fit sexual harassment.

The thing is, she has fully admitted poisoning the gossip girl cast against Penn Badgley, and having to reverse that when she decided that she liked him. So she has a history of doing this. She strikes me as very manipulative.

Blake started this smear campaign against Justin and he retaliated. We will see if what he did was a true smear campaign or not. So far, Jed Wallace is making it look like he really didn’t do anything wrong besides hiring crisis communications which people do all the time.

What she didn’t account for was people getting really really annoyed. You can say oh well she made $350 million with her marketing, but she pissed a lot of people off including a lot of Colleen Hoover fans. Maybe some people hate watched the film, maybe some people watch the film in spite of Blake, maybe some watched because of Blake, but she did not serve herself well by playing Barbie. And that is why the most infamous smear video - that baby bump interview -gained so much traction, and The journalist who posted that with a very provocative headline has come out and said she was not part of any campaign, and she just did it to get clicks. The fact is stories about Blake being clueless get a lot of hits. Stories about her, not getting along with Anna Kendrick, stories about her, not getting along with the gossip girl cast, they all persisted well before this smear campaign, and they get clicks and hits. People like to read about it. So to say that just created, this universe is just wrong. There are all kinds of influencers capitalizing on Blake being super problematic and saying dumb things.

Blake was pissed that the criticism was taking away from her biggest box office hit ever, and she got with her team and went to the New York Times to share the list, which was according to Justin very different than the list he saw in January 2024. It is so clear to me that they were not prepared for this counter suit. They never wanted to drag Taylor into it, she never wanted those texts exposed. They wanted Justin to go away and disappear. They didn’t care about the consequences for him and they wanted rights to the sequel.

Well, good luck with all that now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP with numbered list. I can also imagine another side where she is a diva mean girl that he doesn’t quite know how to deal with. Like, I can see this through that lens also. If that’s the truth then you called this better than me. But I also hate Freedman and right now I see theough her lens.

Thanks for asking and also explaining your pov!

This list goes wrong for me at #4. Telling Baldoni she felt uncomfortable and asking for changes going forward—no problem. Using those claims (regardless of their veracity) to make the movie she wanted to make is where it goes off the rails for me. SH should not be used as leverage, full stop.

PP w/ list. I get that. And I understand view of her as a villain. To me, she thought she was saving the film. How could she promote this film as she promised if not-real-feminist director makes its message that DV husbands are sympathetic hunks? And like PP maybe says, threat was failure to promote, not to release SH claims. But agree to disagree! Enough from me for a while.

I agree that it's an open question whether she sought control over the editing/Final Cut of the film because either:

1) She was greedy and power mad, wanted to use the movie as a springboard to being considered a legitimate producer and potentially director for other projects, and she and Reynolds plotted this all along,

OR

2) She became alarmed during the filming of the movie about how her character would be portrayed, how Baldoni's character would be portrayed, and how the sex scenes featuring both her and the actress playing the younger version of the chacracer would be handled in editing, and therefore fought for creative control over the Final Cut of the movie, and lobbied Sony on these specific issues, because she was worried about appearing in a movie that could wind up being an apologia for abusers or that could be seen as anti-feminist and problematic.

I see arguments for both. There's a possibility it's actually a bit of a combination of both. I think likely there is evidence to come that will shed light on this, including especially evidence and testimony regarding Lively's communications with Sony during the editing phase of the movie. It really appears to me that Sony essentially handed over control of the movie to Lively during the spring of 2024. Did that happen because they were afraid of Reynolds and were just trying to appease him/protect their relationship with him and other people connected to him? Or did Lively make a case for why it was important to hand over control of the movie to a woman and to ensure that the final product had a feminist message that was empowering (as much for marketing reasons as political reasons -- this was always a movie with a primarily female audience and they knew that audience would buy feminist empowerment because of Barbie, whereas there was no evidence women would be eager to buy a movie that was about how maybe abusers can be saved)?

I don't think it's possible to know the answer to this now but when communications between Lively and Sony come out, as well as when Sony execs are deposed/testify, this question could be answered.

I still think her reasons for wanting control (e.g. wanting her character to be portrayed a certain way) don’t negate the way she went about getting that control (e.g. leveraging SH).

[Anonymous]

If anyone is interested, the Abel counterclaims against Jones included a copy of the contract Jonesworks had with Wayfarer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.39.1.pdf

Here's the portion about confidentiality:
Throughout Client’s engagement of Company hereunder, Client may disclose or
provide Company with confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive information about
Client, its customers or other related parties (“Confidential Information”). Company
shall use reasonable and diligent efforts to keep Confidential Information confidential
provided that Company may disclose such information to third parties to the extent
necessary to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or to its legal representatives.
Company shall not use such information for any purpose beyond the performance of
Company’s services hereunder unless otherwise required by law or a court of competent
jurisdiction. Company may, however, use Client’s name as part of its client list and
publicly acknowledge that it is undertaking work for Client pursuant to this Agreement
without specifying the nature of Services. For the avoidance of doubt, Confidential
Information shall not include information (a) which is or later becomes publicly
available through no wrongful act of Company, (b) known by Company prior to Client’s
disclosure to Company in connection with this Agreement or (c) independently
developed by Company without reliance on information disclosed by Client.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Company is not liable for any third party’s disclosure
of Client’s Confidential Information so long as such third party did not obtain the
Confidential Information as a result of Company’s breach or failure to uphold its
obligations hereunder. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement and at the
request of Client, Company shall return or destroy all of Client’s Confidential
Information in Company’s possession and shall upon request of Client send a
certification as to such return or destruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is interested, the Abel counterclaims against Jones included a copy of the contract Jonesworks had with Wayfarer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.39.1.pdf

Here's the portion about confidentiality:
Throughout Client’s engagement of Company hereunder, Client may disclose or
provide Company with confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive information about
Client, its customers or other related parties (“Confidential Information”). Company
shall use reasonable and diligent efforts to keep Confidential Information confidential
provided that Company may disclose such information to third parties to the extent
necessary to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or to its legal representatives.
Company shall not use such information for any purpose beyond the performance of
Company’s services hereunder unless otherwise required by law or a court of competent
jurisdiction. Company may, however, use Client’s name as part of its client list and
publicly acknowledge that it is undertaking work for Client pursuant to this Agreement
without specifying the nature of Services. For the avoidance of doubt, Confidential
Information shall not include information (a) which is or later becomes publicly
available through no wrongful act of Company, (b) known by Company prior to Client’s
disclosure to Company in connection with this Agreement or (c) independently
developed by Company without reliance on information disclosed by Client.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Company is not liable for any third party’s disclosure
of Client’s Confidential Information so long as such third party did not obtain the
Confidential Information as a result of Company’s breach or failure to uphold its
obligations hereunder. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement and at the
request of Client, Company shall return or destroy all of Client’s Confidential
Information in Company’s possession and shall upon request of Client send a
certification as to such return or destruction.

Abel’s and wayfarer’s suits against Jones are strong imo, despite what some of the lawyers on this thread have said. Watched ask 2 lawyers and they seemed to feel the same. Among other things, Abel’s employment contract included a number of provisions that CA simply does not recognize and CA law even states that an employer can be hit with punitive damages for even including these provisions because they’re so obviously illegal that they’re anticompetitive. As a layperson, I think what they mean by that is that if an employer includes an illegal clause in a contract (like a non compete clause, which CA doesn’t recognize) the employer is likely doing it in the hopes that the employee not knowing any better will self restrict their own behavior (although the law doesn’t require them to). Abel has asked the court to void the contract.

Jones also apparently showed Abel’s texts to other coworkers (not just Sloane) in a clear violation of employee privacy. Some people here think Abel doesn’t have rights b/c Jonesworks owned the phone, but CA applies a reasonable person standard to these sorts of actions. Imagine if your boss showed all of your emails and texts, work related or not, to all of your coworkers without your consent. It’s a huge invasion of privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is interested, the Abel counterclaims against Jones included a copy of the contract Jonesworks had with Wayfarer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.39.1.pdf

Here's the portion about confidentiality:
Throughout Client’s engagement of Company hereunder, Client may disclose or
provide Company with confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive information about
Client, its customers or other related parties (“Confidential Information”). Company
shall use reasonable and diligent efforts to keep Confidential Information confidential
provided that Company may disclose such information to third parties to the extent
necessary to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or to its legal representatives.
Company shall not use such information for any purpose beyond the performance of
Company’s services hereunder unless otherwise required by law or a court of competent
jurisdiction. Company may, however, use Client’s name as part of its client list and
publicly acknowledge that it is undertaking work for Client pursuant to this Agreement
without specifying the nature of Services. For the avoidance of doubt, Confidential
Information shall not include information (a) which is or later becomes publicly
available through no wrongful act of Company, (b) known by Company prior to Client’s
disclosure to Company in connection with this Agreement or (c) independently
developed by Company without reliance on information disclosed by Client.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Company is not liable for any third party’s disclosure
of Client’s Confidential Information so long as such third party did not obtain the
Confidential Information as a result of Company’s breach or failure to uphold its
obligations hereunder. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement and at the
request of Client, Company shall return or destroy all of Client’s Confidential
Information in Company’s possession and shall upon request of Client send a
certification as to such return or destruction.

Abel’s and wayfarer’s suits against Jones are strong imo, despite what some of the lawyers on this thread have said. Watched ask 2 lawyers and they seemed to feel the same. Among other things, Abel’s employment contract included a number of provisions that CA simply does not recognize and CA law even states that an employer can be hit with punitive damages for even including these provisions because they’re so obviously illegal that they’re anticompetitive. As a layperson, I think what they mean by that is that if an employer includes an illegal clause in a contract (like a non compete clause, which CA doesn’t recognize) the employer is likely doing it in the hopes that the employee not knowing any better will self restrict their own behavior (although the law doesn’t require them to). Abel has asked the court to void the contract.

Jones also apparently showed Abel’s texts to other coworkers (not just Sloane) in a clear violation of employee privacy. Some people here think Abel doesn’t have rights b/c Jonesworks owned the phone, but CA applies a reasonable person standard to these sorts of actions. Imagine if your boss showed all of your emails and texts, work related or not, to all of your coworkers without your consent. It’s a huge invasion of privacy.

If you are adopting more opinions that are pro-Baldoni based on the Ask Two Lawyers podcast without reading and understanding the docs yourself, you are likely doing yourself a disservice, as I found from my investigation of the protective orders (which granted, almost no one here agrees with me on, but which I am positive I’m right about ha!). They had not listened to the hearing and clearly did mot even understand the underlying documents, and their opinion really reflected a pro-Baldoni bias that was weird.

Re the comment about Lively icing Baldoni out — yeah, I don’t know all the facts. But I don’t think icing him out of promotional events was really a smear campaign against him. Lively and the cast were not saying anything bad about him during those events. I think a smear campaign is when you hire Amber Hears’s PR firm and they say hey we can’t out all the stuff we will do to her in writing because then we would get in trouble. And then talking about how effective the smear guy you hired was being (though now he says he was just monitoring). To me.

[Anonymous]

Early on Baldoni’s promo was also all about flowers and go Lily and not DV. He pivoted later but he was working from the same PR sheet as Blake initially and making bouquets, touring flower shops and not a mention of DV either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is interested, the Abel counterclaims against Jones included a copy of the contract Jonesworks had with Wayfarer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.39.1.pdf

Here's the portion about confidentiality:
Throughout Client’s engagement of Company hereunder, Client may disclose or
provide Company with confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive information about
Client, its customers or other related parties (“Confidential Information”). Company
shall use reasonable and diligent efforts to keep Confidential Information confidential
provided that Company may disclose such information to third parties to the extent
necessary to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or to its legal representatives.
Company shall not use such information for any purpose beyond the performance of
Company’s services hereunder unless otherwise required by law or a court of competent
jurisdiction. Company may, however, use Client’s name as part of its client list and
publicly acknowledge that it is undertaking work for Client pursuant to this Agreement
without specifying the nature of Services. For the avoidance of doubt, Confidential
Information shall not include information (a) which is or later becomes publicly
available through no wrongful act of Company, (b) known by Company prior to Client’s
disclosure to Company in connection with this Agreement or (c) independently
developed by Company without reliance on information disclosed by Client.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Company is not liable for any third party’s disclosure
of Client’s Confidential Information so long as such third party did not obtain the
Confidential Information as a result of Company’s breach or failure to uphold its
obligations hereunder. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement and at the
request of Client, Company shall return or destroy all of Client’s Confidential
Information in Company’s possession and shall upon request of Client send a
certification as to such return or destruction.

Abel’s and wayfarer’s suits against Jones are strong imo, despite what some of the lawyers on this thread have said. Watched ask 2 lawyers and they seemed to feel the same. Among other things, Abel’s employment contract included a number of provisions that CA simply does not recognize and CA law even states that an employer can be hit with punitive damages for even including these provisions because they’re so obviously illegal that they’re anticompetitive. As a layperson, I think what they mean by that is that if an employer includes an illegal clause in a contract (like a non compete clause, which CA doesn’t recognize) the employer is likely doing it in the hopes that the employee not knowing any better will self restrict their own behavior (although the law doesn’t require them to). Abel has asked the court to void the contract.

Jones also apparently showed Abel’s texts to other coworkers (not just Sloane) in a clear violation of employee privacy. Some people here think Abel doesn’t have rights b/c Jonesworks owned the phone, but CA applies a reasonable person standard to these sorts of actions. Imagine if your boss showed all of your emails and texts, work related or not, to all of your coworkers without your consent. It’s a huge invasion of privacy.

If you are adopting more opinions that are pro-Baldoni based on the Ask Two Lawyers podcast without reading and understanding the docs yourself, you are likely doing yourself a disservice, as I found from my investigation of the protective orders (which granted, almost no one here agrees with me on, but which I am positive I’m right about ha!). They had not listened to the hearing and clearly did mot even understand the underlying documents, and their opinion really reflected a pro-Baldoni bias that was weird.

Re the comment about Lively icing Baldoni out — yeah, I don’t know all the facts. But I don’t think icing him out of promotional events was really a smear campaign against him. Lively and the cast were not saying anything bad about him during those events. I think a smear campaign is when you hire Amber Hears’s PR firm and they say hey we can’t out all the stuff we will do to her in writing because then we would get in trouble. And then talking about how effective the smear guy you hired was being (though now he says he was just monitoring). To me.

But they completely were though. I heard about the fat shaming rumors back in August before any of this went down. Who do you think started that??

You have to remember, this was a highly anticipated movie with a built-in fan base, and fans were asking, why in the hell are these cast members not interacting with each other and acting so weird? And the answer to that was well Justin fat shamed Blake, Justin is a creep, etc.. I’m sorry, but that is a smear campaign. Someone started those rumors.

And the fat shaming thing is so ridiculous because even though he probably didn’t handle it great, I really think he made a strong case for not giving a crap about Blake‘s weight. She was the one who is obsessed with it and deeply insecure - I think insecurities about her age, her postpartum body, her feeling like she wasn’t recognized for contributions to past projects, feeling like she’s behind in terms of wanting to have control of storytelling and producing etc all played into this. At the end of the day, no, I do not think he fat shamed her.

But that chatter started somewhere. Justin knew they were preparing for something big. He sent that chilling text to Nathan and Abel saying so. He was preparing to save his reputation. And sure enough, Ryan started the sexual predator talk (I’m sorry nothing to at Blake described that happened on set was predatory behavior, though I do think she thought every man on that set was out to get her and was trying to look at her boobs or something, and clearly she was paranoid and making things up about who was there when.)

So not at all fair to say that he started this. They could have just had a cordial premier and she would’ve gotten a lot less pushback. She should’ve listened to media professionals that told her not to sell alcohol lines and launch hair lines during the marketing of this, and she would’ve gotten a lot less criticism.

Sure, maybe the movie would have not done quite as well, but at least she would have her reputation and maybe her marriage, and her friendship with Taylor. I think all that’s pretty much gone now no matter the outcome of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is interested, the Abel counterclaims against Jones included a copy of the contract Jonesworks had with Wayfarer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.39.1.pdf

Here's the portion about confidentiality:
Throughout Client’s engagement of Company hereunder, Client may disclose or
provide Company with confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive information about
Client, its customers or other related parties (“Confidential Information”). Company
shall use reasonable and diligent efforts to keep Confidential Information confidential
provided that Company may disclose such information to third parties to the extent
necessary to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or to its legal representatives.
Company shall not use such information for any purpose beyond the performance of
Company’s services hereunder unless otherwise required by law or a court of competent
jurisdiction. Company may, however, use Client’s name as part of its client list and
publicly acknowledge that it is undertaking work for Client pursuant to this Agreement
without specifying the nature of Services. For the avoidance of doubt, Confidential
Information shall not include information (a) which is or later becomes publicly
available through no wrongful act of Company, (b) known by Company prior to Client’s
disclosure to Company in connection with this Agreement or (c) independently
developed by Company without reliance on information disclosed by Client.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Company is not liable for any third party’s disclosure
of Client’s Confidential Information so long as such third party did not obtain the
Confidential Information as a result of Company’s breach or failure to uphold its
obligations hereunder. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement and at the
request of Client, Company shall return or destroy all of Client’s Confidential
Information in Company’s possession and shall upon request of Client send a
certification as to such return or destruction.

Abel’s and wayfarer’s suits against Jones are strong imo, despite what some of the lawyers on this thread have said. Watched ask 2 lawyers and they seemed to feel the same. Among other things, Abel’s employment contract included a number of provisions that CA simply does not recognize and CA law even states that an employer can be hit with punitive damages for even including these provisions because they’re so obviously illegal that they’re anticompetitive. As a layperson, I think what they mean by that is that if an employer includes an illegal clause in a contract (like a non compete clause, which CA doesn’t recognize) the employer is likely doing it in the hopes that the employee not knowing any better will self restrict their own behavior (although the law doesn’t require them to). Abel has asked the court to void the contract.

Jones also apparently showed Abel’s texts to other coworkers (not just Sloane) in a clear violation of employee privacy. Some people here think Abel doesn’t have rights b/c Jonesworks owned the phone, but CA applies a reasonable person standard to these sorts of actions. Imagine if your boss showed all of your emails and texts, work related or not, to all of your coworkers without your consent. It’s a huge invasion of privacy.

If you are adopting more opinions that are pro-Baldoni based on the Ask Two Lawyers podcast without reading and understanding the docs yourself, you are likely doing yourself a disservice, as I found from my investigation of the protective orders (which granted, almost no one here agrees with me on, but which I am positive I’m right about ha!). They had not listened to the hearing and clearly did mot even understand the underlying documents, and their opinion really reflected a pro-Baldoni bias that was weird.

Re the comment about Lively icing Baldoni out — yeah, I don’t know all the facts. But I don’t think icing him out of promotional events was really a smear campaign against him. Lively and the cast were not saying anything bad about him during those events. I think a smear campaign is when you hire Amber Hears’s PR firm and they say hey we can’t out all the stuff we will do to her in writing because then we would get in trouble. And then talking about how effective the smear guy you hired was being (though now he says he was just monitoring). To me.

You’re right, no one agrees with you on the PO lol. But that aside, I do think Stephanie is cooked.

[Anonymous]

Huh. I had pretty much assumed that Jones showing Leslie Sloane those texts likely violated the confidentiality clause in her contract with Wayfarer before, but now reading the clause itself, I could see some ways to lawyer herself out of it or minimize exposure.

A lot depends on exactly what Jones sent to Sloane. I doubt she showed her all the texts but I could be wrong.

If she just sent her texts between Nathan and Abel where they don't actually disclose anything that Baldoni or anyone at Wayfarer told them, she might be able to wiggle out of this.

I'd have to look at the texts to see if there are any that could potentially slip through a crack in that clause. Maybe not, but that clause is more narrow than I expected.