Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Fixing the link to the part of CA Code of Civil Procedure that allows for a subpoena without an active case (but in anticipation of filing litigation).

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-2035-030/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you!!! A few follow up questions if you don’t mind…

Why was Abel leaving? Was she trying to take Wayfarer? Or was Jones just being paranoid?

And I don’t see the connection with Nathan. Why did Abel hire her and not Jones if Jones owned the agency? And how did Blake’s publicist get involved and what text messages could get Nathan sued?

Abel was leaving to start her own business (and maybe because of the toxic work environment at Joneswork I imagine). I don’t think she explicitly threatened to take Wayfarer, but when Jones started trying to engage with them more and was rebuffed by Heath, it probably seemed to her that would be the likely outcome. Jones even sent Heath an email reminding him they were under contract until 2025.

Wayfarer needed crisis PR because of all the rumors swirling around the premiere. Abel didn’t hire Nathan per se, she just recommended Nathan to Wayfarer, against Jones’ advice. But I think technically Nathan was not for Joneswork to hire or fire, and was contracted directly with Wayfarer.

Leslie Sloane was involved because all the PR people were talking to each other during the premiere crisis, trying to advocate for their clients. Abel was communicating directly with Sony and tried to engage Maximum effort (Ryan’s firm that was doing all the publicity) to see how Justin could be included b/c she wanted to avoid rumors about things going on behind the scenes. Of course this is exactly what happened when the entire cast started doing publicity without JB, so Abel, Sloane and Nathan were all communicating regularly about the stories floating around and coordinating how to respond. The problem is none of them really kept their word to the other and were still undermining each others clients with reporters when it came down to a choice between their client and the other person. For example, they all agreed not to talk to the press on Aug 8 I think (or something like that), but that same day, Leslie Sloane told the press “everyone hates Justin” when a reporter called and said they were hearing Blake was difficult on set etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

I’m not one of those people, fwiw. I believe Baldoni harassed Lively and then approved a smear campaign. Various people like me believe Baldoni was wrong and aren’t wanting to sacrifice him for higher principles — but rather don’t think men should be allowed to smear women in the public eye through untraceable campaigns just because they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

I’m not one of those people, fwiw. I believe Baldoni harassed Lively and then approved a smear campaign. Various people like me believe Baldoni was wrong and aren’t wanting to sacrifice him for higher principles — but rather don’t think men should be allowed to smear women in the public eye through untraceable campaigns just because they can.

+1, I think even if Lively loses her case, Baldoni brought this situation on himself by doing inappropriate things on set and then setting out to destroy Lively when the natural consequence of his behavior was that Lively and other cast members did not like him, didn't trust him to produce an edit of the film that was respectful to women, and didn't want to promote the movie with him.

Abel herself said in texts all the way back in early 2024 that Baldoni had brought this problem on himself through his own behavior and that he would try and blame everyone but himself for the fallout. Yes, Jennifer Abel, his publicist.

Even if what he did is not found to constitute sexual harassment, I think it sounds like he ran an unprofessional set, crossed boundaries, was inappropriate, and made multiple members of the cast feel uncomfortable. Actions have consequences. He wants to turn back the clock and play the victim and act like it was all a misunderstanding and actually he did nothing wrong. I've read all the docs, watched the video, listened to the voice memo, etc. He's creepy, inappropriate, boundary violating, and a crap director. Why am I supposed to feel sorry for this man?

[Anonymous]

I think we can all agree to disagree on some of these sentiments. Let's await the decision on the MTDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

I’m not one of those people, fwiw. I believe Baldoni harassed Lively and then approved a smear campaign. Various people like me believe Baldoni was wrong and aren’t wanting to sacrifice him for higher principles — but rather don’t think men should be allowed to smear women in the public eye through untraceable campaigns just because they can.

If that’s the case, I assume you feel even more outraged about what RR admitted to doing to Olivia Wilde, as well as what he made his daughter say in Deadpool?

[Anonymous]

So, Nathan proposed two different PR plans to Heath and Abel.

* One top tier for 4 months at $175K total for 3-4 months that includes “full Reddit, full social account take downs, full social crisis team on hand for anything, engage with audiences in the right way, start threads of theories (to discuss) — this is the way to be fully 100% protected.”

* The lower tier of services was for $25k per month (so $75k-$100k for the same 3-4 months timeframe - minimum of 3 months “as it needs to seed same as above” ew) for “creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change narrative and stay on track … all of this will be most importantly untraceable.” To discuss details by phone.

Which one of these did Baldoni choose? I don’t see it mentioned in either complaint. I guess Wallace’s $40k came out of these amounts. Either way, both of these proposed plans go way beyond monitoring and talk about actively participating to influence public perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

I’m not one of those people, fwiw. I believe Baldoni harassed Lively and then approved a smear campaign. Various people like me believe Baldoni was wrong and aren’t wanting to sacrifice him for higher principles — but rather don’t think men should be allowed to smear women in the public eye through untraceable campaigns just because they can.

If that’s the case, I assume you feel even more outraged about what RR admitted to doing to Olivia Wilde, as well as what he made his daughter say in Deadpool?

DP, but someone who also thinks Baldoni did something wrong here, and I'm happy to answer this.

The Olivia Wilde thing doesn't bother me because it doesn't sound like there was a violation of consent. Wilde has never indicated that anything Ryan did while filming that sex scene violated her boundaries. The scene itself involved choreography of Wilde placing his hands on her breasts. In his interview he's making a joke at his own expense, pointing out that he was awkward in filming the scene. But unless Wilde came forward with any indication that he was inappropriate, why would I be "outraged" at this? Filming sex scenes sounds really weird. It doesn't sound like Reynolds crossed a line there.

The thing with his kid bothers me more -- they are a minor and if they were uncomfortable and forced to say a sexual line over and over, I think that's wrong and needs to be addressed. But all I know about it is this interview he gave. Was he exaggerating? Usually when minors are on a set there are additional protections for them. Was there anyone on set looking out for the child's well being? Were they concerned? I just literally don't know enough.

But also, I can think Reynolds is a bit of a tool, and think he did something wrong in that case, and STILL think Baldoni is wrong in the Lively case. In fact, I can dislike Lively, find her generally annoying and not like her acting, and STILL think Baldoni is wrong in the Lively case. To me this is not about pickings sides. To me it is about believing that what Lively alleges, and what Baldoni has largely admitted, happened on that set was sexual harassment, and that the texts clearly show Baldoni seeking to retaliate against Lively for complaining about it or to prevent her from reporting it. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

I’m not one of those people, fwiw. I believe Baldoni harassed Lively and then approved a smear campaign. Various people like me believe Baldoni was wrong and aren’t wanting to sacrifice him for higher principles — but rather don’t think men should be allowed to smear women in the public eye through untraceable campaigns just because they can.

If that’s the case, I assume you feel even more outraged about what RR admitted to doing to Olivia Wilde, as well as what he made his daughter say in Deadpool?

PP you asked (I’m the PO atty). I have not seen the Olivia Wilde story so I just googled it — are you seriously talking about this humorous story Reynolds told on Leno about pasties that he reflexively put back on Wilde’s breasts when they came off from his nervous sweat, from at least a decade ago? https://www.instagram.com/withoutacrystalball/reel/DGnvCVsR3H_/

I have no problem with him doing that - it sounds like it was well intentioned, to cover her up, and he was making a joke about it at his own expense (basically making her sound charming and himself sound like a sweaty buffoon).

I can’t honestly imagine anyone getting upset about this unless the facts have been misdelivered, maybe via social media, somehow? Weird to me. It’s a legit funny story.

I don’t mind the Kidpool quote, either, on its face. If I heard the kid actually was upset by it I’d feel differently, but I’m not upset on kid’s behalf as a member of the public. My own daughter now (unfortunately, to me) curses like a sailor and I trace that back to us both having the Hamilton soundtrack memorized by the time she was 8. Imho it’s kind of an extremely conservatively valued thing to get mad about someone else’s kid repeatedly cursing like this — for the purposes of a job in a movie — with full approval from the parents. Jmho

[Anonymous]

But honestly PP before me makes the best point, that you could think Reynolds did something wrong but also think Baldoni was wrong, or even more wrong (ie, I think Baldoni was more wrong for sure).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But honestly PP before me makes the best point, that you could think Reynolds did something wrong but also think Baldoni was wrong, or even more wrong (ie, I think Baldoni was more wrong for sure).

Several of us beg to differ on that point.

[Anonymous]

I'll chime in that it sounds like Baldoni and Reynolds both suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

I’m not one of those people, fwiw. I believe Baldoni harassed Lively and then approved a smear campaign. Various people like me believe Baldoni was wrong and aren’t wanting to sacrifice him for higher principles — but rather don’t think men should be allowed to smear women in the public eye through untraceable campaigns just because they can.

If that’s the case, I assume you feel even more outraged about what RR admitted to doing to Olivia Wilde, as well as what he made his daughter say in Deadpool?

PP you asked (I’m the PO atty). I have not seen the Olivia Wilde story so I just googled it — are you seriously talking about this humorous story Reynolds told on Leno about pasties that he reflexively put back on Wilde’s breasts when they came off from his nervous sweat, from at least a decade ago? https://www.instagram.com/withoutacrystalball/reel/DGnvCVsR3H_/

I have no problem with him doing that - it sounds like it was well intentioned, to cover her up, and he was making a joke about it at his own expense (basically making her sound charming and himself sound like a sweaty buffoon).

I can’t honestly imagine anyone getting upset about this unless the facts have been misdelivered, maybe via social media, somehow? Weird to me. It’s a legit funny story.

I don’t mind the Kidpool quote, either, on its face. If I heard the kid actually was upset by it I’d feel differently, but I’m not upset on kid’s behalf as a member of the public. My own daughter now (unfortunately, to me) curses like a sailor and I trace that back to us both having the Hamilton soundtrack memorized by the time she was 8. Imho it’s kind of an extremely conservatively valued thing to get mad about someone else’s kid repeatedly cursing like this — for the purposes of a job in a movie — with full approval from the parents. Jmho

All I’ll saw is wow. If you think anything JB did is worse than RR groping Olivia Wilde after the scene had wrapped and having his daughter rehearse “take wolverine’s privates out your mouth” 500 times, then you’re just trolling for BL. Absolutely no point trying to have a discussion with someone so blatantly biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, Nathan proposed two different PR plans to Heath and Abel.

* One top tier for 4 months at $175K total for 3-4 months that includes “full Reddit, full social account take downs, full social crisis team on hand for anything, engage with audiences in the right way, start threads of theories (to discuss) — this is the way to be fully 100% protected.”

* The lower tier of services was for $25k per month (so $75k-$100k for the same 3-4 months timeframe - minimum of 3 months “as it needs to seed same as above” ew) for “creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change narrative and stay on track … all of this will be most importantly untraceable.” To discuss details by phone.

Which one of these did Baldoni choose? I don’t see it mentioned in either complaint. I guess Wallace’s $40k came out of these amounts. Either way, both of these proposed plans go way beyond monitoring and talk about actively participating to influence public perception.

Since it was all organic and they never did another he could add yet another lawsuit for breach of contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Nathan proposed two different PR plans to Heath and Abel.

* One top tier for 4 months at $175K total for 3-4 months that includes “full Reddit, full social account take downs, full social crisis team on hand for anything, engage with audiences in the right way, start threads of theories (to discuss) — this is the way to be fully 100% protected.”

* The lower tier of services was for $25k per month (so $75k-$100k for the same 3-4 months timeframe - minimum of 3 months “as it needs to seed same as above” ew) for “creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change narrative and stay on track … all of this will be most importantly untraceable.” To discuss details by phone.

Which one of these did Baldoni choose? I don’t see it mentioned in either complaint. I guess Wallace’s $40k came out of these amounts. Either way, both of these proposed plans go way beyond monitoring and talk about actively participating to influence public perception.

Since it was all organic and they never did another he could add yet another lawsuit for breach of contract.

Anything *