Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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.

&&&
My level of investment is deeply unhealthy? That’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yet here we are, 515 pages deep of ‘important legal discussions’ about a highly visible entertainment case, but I’m being called crazy because I don’t espouse the legal obsession that you hold for this case, on an entertainment and pop culture thread?

Go look in the mirror. 515 pages of legal obsession on an entertainment thread that’s asking about “Analyzing Hilaria” or “Tik Tok vs. Insta”, “Melinda G Whining About Divorce” or the “Psychology of Ben A.” and yet you whine about me posting about entertainers just because it’s not the legal discourse that you want to hear?

Get out of here.

[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.

+1

And hence my outrage. Blake is no victim. Disgusting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lima’s should reprimand them. Sanctions should be served.

[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.

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.

&&&
My level of investment is deeply unhealthy? That’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yet here we are, 515 pages deep of ‘important legal discussions’ about a highly visible entertainment case, but I’m being called crazy because I don’t espouse the legal obsession that you hold for this case, on an entertainment and pop culture thread?

Go look in the mirror. 515 pages of legal obsession on an entertainment thread that’s asking about “Analyzing Hilaria” or “Tik Tok vs. Insta”, “Melinda G Whining About Divorce” or the “Psychology of Ben A.” and yet you whine about me posting about entertainers just because it’s not the legal discourse that you want to hear?

Get out of here.

DP but I wish you would give it a rest for a while. You say the same insults over and over again and it’s neither useful nor informative. To me, it’s boring. And even if others aren’t bored by it, there’s no need to post quite so much of it. Surely you have an actual life to attend to, a family, or people who love you? If not, carry on.

[Anonymous]

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.

What you describe is not the legal use of a Doe lawsuit. A Doe lawsuit is for when you do not know who the defendant is. If the attorney represented to the court that she did not know who the defendants were, but believed that had harmed and breached contracts with a company called Vanzan, when in fact she knew that these were texts from specific parties about Blake Lively, just to "not tip them off " then she lied and misused the court process. I would consider it perjury.

I think it's crazy that some posters are either 100% for Justin and Freedman or 100% for Blake and co.

[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.

Alternatively, if you believed a person had sexually harassed you and then started a smear campaign against you in retaliation, why wouldn't you want to humiliate them? Also, you would of course be worried about the ongoing smear campaign so you'd have a strong reason to keep any moves towards litigation quiet to avoid them trying to protect it with more negative smearing online.

It is crazy to expect Lively to treat Baldoni with kindness and respect when we know Baldoni had spent the last several months before the subpoena telling Abel and Nathan to go harder in trying to bury Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if you believed a person had sexually harassed you and then started a smear campaign against you in retaliation, why wouldn't you want to humiliate them? Also, you would of course be worried about the ongoing smear campaign so you'd have a strong reason to keep any moves towards litigation quiet to avoid them trying to protect it with more negative smearing online.

It is crazy to expect Lively to treat Baldoni with kindness and respect when we know Baldoni had spent the last several months before the subpoena telling Abel and Nathan to go harder in trying to bury Lively.

I actually don’t go through life wanting to humiliate anyone. Even people who are mean to me. I want to establish boundaries for myself and get away from them. I want them to get help. Never do I want to humiliate them. Thats something very different to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lima’s should reprimand them. Sanctions should be served.

Agree, my guess is the lawyers were brought in after the texts were in Blake’s possession. Everything that happened after that was clean up duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

They really deserve each other, they're both scumbags.

Ok sorry I think she turned 23, but still, not much better.

The company belongs to Ryan reynolds and Blake reynolds though they didn’t supposedly marry until 2012? What was going on with that’s two? Nothing good. A lot of sneakiness and deception.

Everyone said that little stint of sightings with Leo in 2011 was fake. Now it all looks so sordid.

She was using Leo to get back at Ryan.

Scarlett and Ryan were still together in August. They had just bought a house.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303731/Scarlett-Johansson-Ryan-Reynolds-add-portfolio-stunning-1-8-million-L-A-home.html

You are trying to tell me, Scarlett and Ryan’s marriage was going to survive him setting up a company with another woman and her taking his name? Come on you can’t be that naïve. The publicists were at work to make sure Ryan could disengage from Scarlet and they wanted to make it seem like she was dating Leo. We didn’t know then, but we now know, that Leo does this all the time. Leo is into dudes and all the model dating is fake.

He was happy to play the game with Blake. It helps his reputation as well. They weren’t really dating and she wasn’t getting back at Ryan. They were fully together.

Only Blake had created the company and it wasn't Reynolds yet. It was still Blake lively. She created it in September 2010. Scarlett obviously didn't know about the affair when they bought the house. They officially announced their break up in December.

But it was an ode to him, Vanzan is their hometown‘s combined. I’m sure you’d be totally fine if you found out some woman started a shell company with your husband adorably combining their hometown names - perfectly normal thing to do!

I’m sure by then Scarlet knew of the affair and the marriage was unraveling so she truly probably doesn’t care, it’s just a bad look though. He should have disentangled from her before pursuing things with Blake.

If I’m putting the pieces together correctly (using Reddit), Blake took over some defunct company named Vanzan in 2021. They probably just picked that one because of the name. I could be misinterpreting it, but that makes more sense to me than they bought a company together while Ryan was married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if you believed a person had sexually harassed you and then started a smear campaign against you in retaliation, why wouldn't you want to humiliate them? Also, you would of course be worried about the ongoing smear campaign so you'd have a strong reason to keep any moves towards litigation quiet to avoid them trying to protect it with more negative smearing online.

It is crazy to expect Lively to treat Baldoni with kindness and respect when we know Baldoni had spent the last several months before the subpoena telling Abel and Nathan to go harder in trying to bury Lively.

There’s nothing you can say to make the doe lawsuit ok. If anything, your argument that lively wanted to humiliate Justin goes to malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if you believed a person had sexually harassed you and then started a smear campaign against you in retaliation, why wouldn't you want to humiliate them? Also, you would of course be worried about the ongoing smear campaign so you'd have a strong reason to keep any moves towards litigation quiet to avoid them trying to protect it with more negative smearing online.

It is crazy to expect Lively to treat Baldoni with kindness and respect when we know Baldoni had spent the last several months before the subpoena telling Abel and Nathan to go harder in trying to bury Lively.

There’s nothing you can say to make the doe lawsuit ok. If anything, your argument that lively wanted to humiliate Justin goes to malice.

Ok, then I guess we'll just have to wait for the judge to say it. Which he will, because it's fine. Your perspectives be is heavily colored by your extreme bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

They really deserve each other, they're both scumbags.

Ok sorry I think she turned 23, but still, not much better.

The company belongs to Ryan reynolds and Blake reynolds though they didn’t supposedly marry until 2012? What was going on with that’s two? Nothing good. A lot of sneakiness and deception.

Everyone said that little stint of sightings with Leo in 2011 was fake. Now it all looks so sordid.

She was using Leo to get back at Ryan.

Scarlett and Ryan were still together in August. They had just bought a house.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303731/Scarlett-Johansson-Ryan-Reynolds-add-portfolio-stunning-1-8-million-L-A-home.html

You are trying to tell me, Scarlett and Ryan’s marriage was going to survive him setting up a company with another woman and her taking his name? Come on you can’t be that naïve. The publicists were at work to make sure Ryan could disengage from Scarlet and they wanted to make it seem like she was dating Leo. We didn’t know then, but we now know, that Leo does this all the time. Leo is into dudes and all the model dating is fake.

He was happy to play the game with Blake. It helps his reputation as well. They weren’t really dating and she wasn’t getting back at Ryan. They were fully together.

Only Blake had created the company and it wasn't Reynolds yet. It was still Blake lively. She created it in September 2010. Scarlett obviously didn't know about the affair when they bought the house. They officially announced their break up in December.

But it was an ode to him, Vanzan is their hometown‘s combined. I’m sure you’d be totally fine if you found out some woman started a shell company with your husband adorably combining their hometown names - perfectly normal thing to do!

I’m sure by then Scarlet knew of the affair and the marriage was unraveling so she truly probably doesn’t care, it’s just a bad look though. He should have disentangled from her before pursuing things with Blake.

If I’m putting the pieces together correctly (using Reddit), Blake took over some defunct company named Vanzan in 2021. They probably just picked that one because of the name. I could be misinterpreting it, but that makes more sense to me than they bought a company together while Ryan was married.

Are you being serious? Ryan has a history of naming things after his hometown Vancouver. You think they just happened to find a defunct company that combined both their hometown names? Give me a break. In 2010 Ryan’s business partner I think his name is Rick Binder or something was associated with the company. That also a coincidence?

The online theory is that it was Ryan’s promise ring that he was going to leave his wife for her, since he wasn’t in a position to leave Scarlett so soon after he and Blake had done a movie together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if you believed a person had sexually harassed you and then started a smear campaign against you in retaliation, why wouldn't you want to humiliate them? Also, you would of course be worried about the ongoing smear campaign so you'd have a strong reason to keep any moves towards litigation quiet to avoid them trying to protect it with more negative smearing online.

It is crazy to expect Lively to treat Baldoni with kindness and respect when we know Baldoni had spent the last several months before the subpoena telling Abel and Nathan to go harder in trying to bury Lively.

She had already humiliated him by banning him from his film and relegating him to the basement and before lively supporters come on and say it wasn’t the basement, an influencer just did a tour of the very location this week and showed, drumroll please, there is actually a basement and that’s where Baldoni and his family and friends took pictures in. I’m so sick of the lying and gaslighting by the lively supporters and I don’t believe for one minute it is genuine.

These are really scummy, gross, trash people. These are people that started a company together when Ryan was still married and buying property with his wife.

This is likely the tip of the iceberg. It’s why Blake and Ryan hired the CIA folks to keep this kind of stuff out of the press but they are failing. The whole, we reunited on a blind date in 2011 well after my divorce is all BS. They were buying a company together before the crappy movie where they started their affair even wrapped. For a 22-year-old to be having an affair with a married man in his mid 30s is absolutely disgusting for both of them. It’s gross and there’s no coming back from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

They really deserve each other, they're both scumbags.

Ok sorry I think she turned 23, but still, not much better.

The company belongs to Ryan reynolds and Blake reynolds though they didn’t supposedly marry until 2012? What was going on with that’s two? Nothing good. A lot of sneakiness and deception.

Everyone said that little stint of sightings with Leo in 2011 was fake. Now it all looks so sordid.

She was using Leo to get back at Ryan.

Scarlett and Ryan were still together in August. They had just bought a house.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303731/Scarlett-Johansson-Ryan-Reynolds-add-portfolio-stunning-1-8-million-L-A-home.html

You are trying to tell me, Scarlett and Ryan’s marriage was going to survive him setting up a company with another woman and her taking his name? Come on you can’t be that naïve. The publicists were at work to make sure Ryan could disengage from Scarlet and they wanted to make it seem like she was dating Leo. We didn’t know then, but we now know, that Leo does this all the time. Leo is into dudes and all the model dating is fake.

He was happy to play the game with Blake. It helps his reputation as well. They weren’t really dating and she wasn’t getting back at Ryan. They were fully together.

Only Blake had created the company and it wasn't Reynolds yet. It was still Blake lively. She created it in September 2010. Scarlett obviously didn't know about the affair when they bought the house. They officially announced their break up in December.

But it was an ode to him, Vanzan is their hometown‘s combined. I’m sure you’d be totally fine if you found out some woman started a shell company with your husband adorably combining their hometown names - perfectly normal thing to do!

I’m sure by then Scarlet knew of the affair and the marriage was unraveling so she truly probably doesn’t care, it’s just a bad look though. He should have disentangled from her before pursuing things with Blake.

If I’m putting the pieces together correctly (using Reddit), Blake took over some defunct company named Vanzan in 2021. They probably just picked that one because of the name. I could be misinterpreting it, but that makes more sense to me than they bought a company together while Ryan was married.

Are you being serious? Ryan has a history of naming things after his hometown Vancouver. You think they just happened to find a defunct company that combined both their hometown names? Give me a break. In 2010 Ryan’s business partner I think his name is Rick Binder or something was associated with the company. That also a coincidence?

The online theory is that it was Ryan’s promise ring that he was going to leave his wife for her, since he wasn’t in a position to leave Scarlett so soon after he and Blake had done a movie together.

I admittedly have not gone deep into this. But the Reddit theories are often really wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if you believed a person had sexually harassed you and then started a smear campaign against you in retaliation, why wouldn't you want to humiliate them? Also, you would of course be worried about the ongoing smear campaign so you'd have a strong reason to keep any moves towards litigation quiet to avoid them trying to protect it with more negative smearing online.

It is crazy to expect Lively to treat Baldoni with kindness and respect when we know Baldoni had spent the last several months before the subpoena telling Abel and Nathan to go harder in trying to bury Lively.

She had already humiliated him by banning him from his film and relegating him to the basement and before lively supporters come on and say it wasn’t the basement, an influencer just did a tour of the very location this week and showed, drumroll please, there is actually a basement and that’s where Baldoni and his family and friends took pictures in. I’m so sick of the lying and gaslighting by the lively supporters and I don’t believe for one minute it is genuine.

These are really scummy, gross, trash people. These are people that started a company together when Ryan was still married and buying property with his wife.

This is likely the tip of the iceberg. It’s why Blake and Ryan hired the CIA folks to keep this kind of stuff out of the press but they are failing. The whole, we reunited on a blind date in 2011 well after my divorce is all BS. They were buying a company together before the crappy movie where they started their affair even wrapped. For a 22-year-old to be having an affair with a married man in his mid 30s is absolutely disgusting for both of them. It’s gross and there’s no coming back from this.

I worked in PR during this time; an affair with Ryan is one of the least disgusting things that was happening with Blake around this time. She has stage parents that are basically pimps.