Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

It should not have been shared by Stephanie Jones without a subpoena. Btw, Jen Abel’s complaint says “on information and belief” there was no subpoena. Stephanie’s going to pay for that in damages and with lost clients. Blake will likely still be able to use it, but right now we’re talking about wayfarer and Abel’s complaints against Jones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

It should not have been shared by Stephanie Jones without a subpoena. Btw, Jen Abel’s complaint says “on information and belief” there was no subpoena. Stephanie’s going to pay for that in damages and with lost clients. Blake will likely still be able to use it, but right now we’re talking about wayfarer and Abel’s complaints against Jones.

That just means Abel is unaware of a subpoena. Not that there wasn't one. I think there was a subpoena because the corporate firms Lively hired would not risk their legal reputations on asserting there was a subpoena in court documents if there wasn't one. I don't know when or how the subpoena was executed, but I feel confident there was one because it would not be worth it to lie about it. As you note, Lively could probably use the texts even if they were obtained in violation of Jones contract with Wayfarer, even without a subpoena. So the only reason for them to say there was a subpoena is if there was a subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a former litigator, pro-no one, but with a strong bias for the way Lively's legal team is litigating over Bryan Freedman's style. I worked with and against lawyers like BF in my career and am not a fan, even when it's effective. I think a lot of what he does is morally borderline and some things strike me as downright unethical. I'm also familiar with him from more than this case, so some of my bias against him comes from knowing about stuff he's done in other cases that I think is really across the line.

That doesn't mean I think Lively is right about everything, or even that she's going to win. I try to be fairly balanced in my comments here and when Lively's team makes mistakes or when Freedman has a win, I will say so.

I've been accused of being pro-Lively and I've also had pro-BL people argue with things I've said. [shrug emoji]

Just pulling this back up from pages ago. I’m the PO obsessed attorney. I don’t suppose you have any Bryan Freedman stories you could share to cement my impression of what a jerkball he is? I understand if you can’t but figured I’d give it a try — no worries if not!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

It should not have been shared by Stephanie Jones without a subpoena. Btw, Jen Abel’s complaint says “on information and belief” there was no subpoena. Stephanie’s going to pay for that in damages and with lost clients. Blake will likely still be able to use it, but right now we’re talking about wayfarer and Abel’s complaints against Jones.

That just means Abel is unaware of a subpoena. Not that there wasn't one. I think there was a subpoena because the corporate firms Lively hired would not risk their legal reputations on asserting there was a subpoena in court documents if there wasn't one. I don't know when or how the subpoena was executed, but I feel confident there was one because it would not be worth it to lie about it. As you note, Lively could probably use the texts even if they were obtained in violation of Jones contract with Wayfarer, even without a subpoena. So the only reason for them to say there was a subpoena is if there was a subpoena.

Covered this a few pages ago but when BL amended her complaint, her lawyers changed the language to BL “believed” there was a subpoena. No one has seen this subpoena b/c there probably wasn’t one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Anonymous]

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true

If that's true yikes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

[Anonymous]

Can someone give me a quick summary of the stephanie Jones Jen Abel side of things? Who worked for who? And someone left and then shared texts with lively?

No flames please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

I am at a point where I am really, really questioning feminism, and which women it really serves to advance in society. I'll keep it at that for now. The pandering from these articles. Not the feminism that many align themselves with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give me a quick summary of the stephanie Jones Jen Abel side of things? Who worked for who? And someone left and then shared texts with lively?

No flames please.

Stephanie Jones is a well known publicist who (had) big name clients like Tom & Gizelle, Besos & Sanchez, and the Rock. She’s based in NYC and is married to a WME exec. She opened an LA office and hired staff there to work more closely with her LA clients.

Jen Abel was hired to work in her LA office. Jones handled the big name clients like Tom Brady directly and delegated the less prominent clients like Wayfarer to Abel and others. So Abel was Wayfarer’s rep.

Abel submitted her resignation in July and gave a very generous 6 weeks notice. She continued working on the Wayfarer account during that time but Jones started getting more involved in hopes of ensuring the client wouldn’t walk with Abel. Wayfarer hadn’t really worked with Jones much, and as they were going through a crisis surrounding JB being iced out of the premiere, told Jones to please back off. They told her politely at first and then more sternly, as they found her involvement sloppy. During this timeframe, Jones was having a lot of PR problems of her own and was losing clients (I think she lost the Rock around that time), so was paranoid about losing clients.

Two days before the end of Abel’s 6 weeks notice, she confronted Abel with people Abel believed to be Jones’ chief of staff (the only person Abel recognized), a “lawyer”, a security guard, and a forensic specialist. They confiscated Abel’s laptop and searched it on the spot for confidential documents but found none. Then they took her phone. The phone is where the big dispute comes from. It was a company device but Abel’s personal number she had used since HS. She didn’t have a separate work and company phone and instead used the one phone for everything. Jones’ chief of staff told Abel to go down to the Verizon store and they would release the number back to her, as they were just confiscating the device. She went directly to the Verizon store and waited 4 hrs but they reneged on their promise. That same day, BL’s publicist called Melissa Nathan, the person Abel had brought on to do crisis PR for Wayfarer, and said I’ve seen your text messages and you will be sued.

Jones sued Wayfarer for breach of contract and Abel for I’m not sure but maybe “stealing clients?” Now Abel is suing for a whole bunch of things: she wants to void the contact for including illegal clauses like a noncompete, which CA doesn’t recognize, and apparently the court can issue punitive damages to Jones for issuing an illegal contract. She’s also suing for false imprisonment and I believe violation to her reasonable expectation of privacy. Wayfarer is suing for breach of confidentiality in their contract and probably some other things.

There’s been a big debate over whether or not anyone ever got a subpoena to share the text messages with BL, but it doesn’t look like there was one. That’s to be determined during discovery but the Wayfarer parties say there wasn’t one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

I see there is a Vanity Fair article from yesterday called “Why Conservative Media Lives Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Showdown” which I can’t read (paywall) — I would have thought with that headline it was pointing out some of the obvious misogyny problems inherent in conservative media taking up Baldoni’s position in this circus that Taylor Lorentz was pointing out three weeks ago, but PP above seems to be saying it’s sympathetic to Baldoni. Okay.

For my part (PP PO lawyer so you know where this is going) I am inherently distrustful of any position Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, or Joe Rogan are taking and I don’t think they’re taking the culture anywhere good. I just finished the audiobook expose about Facebook (Careless People) and it was eye opening re how social media users are so easily manipulated into changing their minds because the mass aggregation of data allows companies like Facebook to target extremely effective advertising/articles at them I. Ways they know and have studied will be most effective. Getting the news through social media is not going to free us. It just gets us believing in different, opposing realities.