Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

BFS.

Someone said that you would come in here with your spin on how clever Blake’s lawyers were to pull off this manuever.

I’m sure most of us agree that Blake Lively is scum. No, she’s lower than that.

I hope Justin takes this all the way to a jury. Everyone sees the lies; every seethes the lies.

BL used the PO to possibly hide Vanzan.

She is just truly disgusting and vile.

I don't know who you think I am but you've gone around the bend, my friend.

Who says “gone around the bend?” A 70 year old British person? Blake Lively is disgusting, and I’m about the zillionth person to say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

BFS.

Someone said that you would come in here with your spin on how clever Blake’s lawyers were to pull off this manuever.

I’m sure most of us agree that Blake Lively is scum. No, she’s lower than that.

I hope Justin takes this all the way to a jury. Everyone sees the lies; every seethes the lies.

BL used the PO to possibly hide Vanzan.

She is just truly disgusting and vile.

I don't know who you think I am but you've gone around the bend, my friend.

Who says “gone around the bend?” A 70 year old British person? Blake Lively is disgusting, and I’m about the zillionth person to say so.

It's just a polite way of saying: you crazy. Who cares this much about some actress? Are you Justin Baldoni's mom? If not, your level of investment here is deeply unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s a settled point now - don’t text stuff like this on your work phone and don’t port your personal # to your work phone. A work phone is company property and they have rights to it.

Moving on, I’m curious about what comes next. Will Freedman fight this? How does Blake wriggle out of this PR issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

It’s impossible to have this conversation because we all view the victim in this scenario differently. You automatically made yourself the one doing the sh*tty thing. Whereas when I imagine my former boss (a narcissistic) circumventing the legal process in some way, I imagine myself as the victim. Sure I’ve had “sophomoric” text conversations with my former coworkers—narcissists have that effect on people. But if she elects to share these conversations with her friends and the NYT, I would feel pretty re-victimized by her using a random Delaware corporation and Doe defendants to do it.

[Anonymous]

If I read and send my work emails on my personal phone, am I okay? I don’t think my employer could take my own phone from me, even if my work emails are on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

It’s impossible to have this conversation because we all view the victim in this scenario differently. You automatically made yourself the one doing the sh*tty thing. Whereas when I imagine my former boss (a narcissistic) circumventing the legal process in some way, I imagine myself as the victim. Sure I’ve had “sophomoric” text conversations with my former coworkers—narcissists have that effect on people. But if she elects to share these conversations with her friends and the NYT, I would feel pretty re-victimized by her using a random Delaware corporation and Doe defendants to do it.

PP here and I think the difference for me is I don't see myself, or Lively, or Baldoni, as victims at all.

[Anonymous]

Again, I think the next thing to drop is that Stephanie Jones was compensated by Blake/Ryan for turning over the texts long before the subpoena was issued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I read and send my work emails on my personal phone, am I okay? I don’t think my employer could take my own phone from me, even if my work emails are on it.

Yes u should be fine. Jones' company owned that device. It doesnt matter if she ported her personal number on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

It’s impossible to have this conversation because we all view the victim in this scenario differently. You automatically made yourself the one doing the sh*tty thing. Whereas when I imagine my former boss (a narcissistic) circumventing the legal process in some way, I imagine myself as the victim. Sure I’ve had “sophomoric” text conversations with my former coworkers—narcissists have that effect on people. But if she elects to share these conversations with her friends and the NYT, I would feel pretty re-victimized by her using a random Delaware corporation and Doe defendants to do it.

Jennifer did not own that device. She will always be in the wrong and an idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

It’s impossible to have this conversation because we all view the victim in this scenario differently. You automatically made yourself the one doing the sh*tty thing. Whereas when I imagine my former boss (a narcissistic) circumventing the legal process in some way, I imagine myself as the victim. Sure I’ve had “sophomoric” text conversations with my former coworkers—narcissists have that effect on people. But if she elects to share these conversations with her friends and the NYT, I would feel pretty re-victimized by her using a random Delaware corporation and Doe defendants to do it.

Jennifer did not own that device. She will always be in the wrong and an idiot

The thread is being lost here. They could have gotten the subpoena in an above board, ethical way. But they chose not to, because they gleefully wanted to own Justin (not Jennifer) in the most humiliating way possible. And that, to me, is not the MO of an actual victim. It’s the MO of a celebrity douche couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I read and send my work emails on my personal phone, am I okay? I don’t think my employer could take my own phone from me, even if my work emails are on it.

Yes u should be fine. Jones' company owned that device. It doesnt matter if she ported her personal number on it.

The porting of a personal number only matters because it was a dumb decision by Abel. Let that be a lesson to everyone. I have a personal and a work phone. Nothing personal goes on the work phone. Abel learned the hard way when she was locked out of her iCloud and personal accounts because she lost access to the work phone and MFA access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did Jennifer Garner do to shade Blake?

It was so petty! Here’s the TikTok

https://www.tiktok.com/@crimetimekenny/video/7493534022413389102

Here’s another video explaining the beef

https://www.tiktok.com/@popculturewithballs/video/7494819700107480350

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

It’s impossible to have this conversation because we all view the victim in this scenario differently. You automatically made yourself the one doing the sh*tty thing. Whereas when I imagine my former boss (a narcissistic) circumventing the legal process in some way, I imagine myself as the victim. Sure I’ve had “sophomoric” text conversations with my former coworkers—narcissists have that effect on people. But if she elects to share these conversations with her friends and the NYT, I would feel pretty re-victimized by her using a random Delaware corporation and Doe defendants to do it.

Jennifer did not own that device. She will always be in the wrong and an idiot

The thread is being lost here. They could have gotten the subpoena in an above board, ethical way. But they chose not to, because they gleefully wanted to own Justin (not Jennifer) in the most humiliating way possible. And that, to me, is not the MO of an actual victim. It’s the MO of a celebrity douche couple.

They already had the texts when the subpoena was issued and my guess is they paid for that privilege. But they needed the subpoena to have any sort of cover for them legitimately being in their possession but they could not go through normal process lest Baldoni or others protest and successfully limit the subpoena. Enter the sham lawsuit. Yes, super shady and definitely inappropriate behavior by all involved, including the attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?

Did what? If my former employer wanted texts where I'd smack talked them and those texts were on a company-owned device, they wouldn't even have to subpoena them -- they'd just take them. If they wanted texts from a personal device they'd have to subpoena them from me directly, not from the company I used to work for (which is them), and so of course I'd know about the subpoena.

This all happened because Jennifer Abel, stupidly, texted a bunch of stuff about her employer and boss on her company-owned device, plotted to leave the company and take a major client with her, and that major client also, stupidly, sent texts about their scheme to try and destroy Lively's reputation in the press, which also wound up on that Jonesworks-owned device. Everyone involved in this situation had the option of NOT saying these deeply incriminating things in texts from or to someone's employer-owned work phone, but didn't take that option.

Actually, let me amend that. If you pay close attention, you'll notice Jamey Heath frequently tells people via text that he'd like to speak to them directly about sensitive subjects. While Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni all have very incriminating texts from Abel's Jonesworks' device, but Heath does not. At one point Nathan references would would be a VERY incriminating conversation between Heath and Jed Wallace (something about how Heath has spoken to Wallace about the tactics they are using on social media to ensure they cannot be traced back to Wayfarer) but Heath doesn't say it.

So I guess that's a long way of saying that if my employer found a way to get some texts of mine where I said a bunch of stuff that would enable my employer to sue me for contract violations or harassment, it would be a real FAFO moment for me and would make me question some of my past choices.

It’s impossible to have this conversation because we all view the victim in this scenario differently. You automatically made yourself the one doing the sh*tty thing. Whereas when I imagine my former boss (a narcissistic) circumventing the legal process in some way, I imagine myself as the victim. Sure I’ve had “sophomoric” text conversations with my former coworkers—narcissists have that effect on people. But if she elects to share these conversations with her friends and the NYT, I would feel pretty re-victimized by her using a random Delaware corporation and Doe defendants to do it.

Jennifer did not own that device. She will always be in the wrong and an idiot

The thread is being lost here. They could have gotten the subpoena in an above board, ethical way. But they chose not to, because they gleefully wanted to own Justin (not Jennifer) in the most humiliating way possible. And that, to me, is not the MO of an actual victim. It’s the MO of a celebrity douche couple.

Yes, the thread is being lost. That’s the intention of the pro lively poster. People should stop talking to them.