Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

YES! The only people I have heard of being on Signal are Trump admin folks who are trying not to get caught. Who does that?!

Still unknown exactly who was paying Wallace, which also seems weird. He’s just a regular guy living in a two million dollar mansion in Austin who just makes little reports on social media but definitely doesn’t do anything except that and exclusively communicates on Signal. 👌

Every journalist I know, all of them Democrats. Also a lot of Dem political operatives.

What does being a democrat or republican have to do with this? That’s a bizarre bit of extra shading you added.

If journalists are using Signal to protect their sources and political operatives are hiding the money or other trails, while normal PR operatives like Nathan etc are using email and texting, what possible reason could little old Jed Wallace “just monitoring social media” have to use Signal and nothing else? It’s bizarre.

Dp, but you sound out of touch. Signal is very popular these days, particularly among government employees who want to discuss things like doge without doge knowing.

Again, feds have a reason to not want their communications to be discoverable rn, no? If all Jed Wallace is doing is “monitoring social media” in a completely above-board way, what possible need does he have to use Signal where messages can be set to “disappear” after a period of time? Doesn’t he need to be able to keep records of his totally above board and legit business communications, rather than have them disappear into the ether?

He could just be an eccentric, and I suspect that's part of it. Now, he swore under oath that he didn't promote or post any anti-Lively content nor direct anyone to do so, which suggests he's either telling the truth or very sure what he did was untraceable. I'm sure we all have out thoughts there. I have mine. But I am not going to draw a negative inference from using an encrypted app because that's a dangerous road. At least he and Heath seem to have some brains, unlike Nathan and especially Abel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

YES! The only people I have heard of being on Signal are Trump admin folks who are trying not to get caught. Who does that?!

Still unknown exactly who was paying Wallace, which also seems weird. He’s just a regular guy living in a two million dollar mansion in Austin who just makes little reports on social media but definitely doesn’t do anything except that and exclusively communicates on Signal. 👌

Every journalist I know, all of them Democrats. Also a lot of Dem political operatives.

What does being a democrat or republican have to do with this? That’s a bizarre bit of extra shading you added.

If journalists are using Signal to protect their sources and political operatives are hiding the money or other trails, while normal PR operatives like Nathan etc are using email and texting, what possible reason could little old Jed Wallace “just monitoring social media” have to use Signal and nothing else? It’s bizarre.

Dp, but you sound out of touch. Signal is very popular these days, particularly among government employees who want to discuss things like doge without doge knowing.

Again, feds have a reason to not want their communications to be discoverable rn, no? If all Jed Wallace is doing is “monitoring social media” in a completely above-board way, what possible need does he have to use Signal where messages can be set to “disappear” after a period of time? Doesn’t he need to be able to keep records of his totally above board and legit business communications, rather than have them disappear into the ether?

Again, everyone is using Signal these days, you are just out of touch. There is nothing nefarious about using it.

Most people had not even heard about Signal 6 months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, if he’s trying so hard to get out of the case, why can’t he even say who exactly hired him and how much he received as payment?

Yeah, he seems very insistent he wasn't hired by TAG (every Wayfarer party Answer "admits" that TAG accidentally admitted they hired him) and states it again in this complaint, but uses the passive voice when referring to whoever hired him to "monitor." It's sort of weird in that it should be revealed in discovery anyway but maybe they don't want to make anything easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, if he’s trying so hard to get out of the case, why can’t he even say who exactly hired him and how much he received as payment?

His pleadings are very carefully worded. In the amended complaint he states that he was not hired by TAG or Melissa Nathan. He does not say he was hired by Wayfarer though. He states he merely monitored social media regarding the release of the movie. For Wayfarer? Was this info shared with Sony, who as distributor and with a major financial stake would have been heavily invested in the social media traffic regarding IEWU.

Of course, we know that Baldoni, Abel, and Nathan were not discussing the coverage if the movie so much as coverage of Lively and Baldoni. Including coverage of Lively unrelated to the movie. Why then would Wallace be mentioned in those conversations? And if they were concerned about the coverage if IEWU on social media, why would they be celebrating negative content about its star?

I'm open to the idea that Jed Wallace has nothing to do with any of this, but he's not doing a very good job of explaining it. We know Baldoni wanted to take Blake down online and we know this was a big part of why he hired Nathan. If Wallace has nothing to do with that, why can't he just produce a scope of work proposal or contract that explains what he did? I work as an independent contractor doing above board things, and if any of my clients got embroiled in litigation like this, it would be pretty easy for me to show how I only did ethical, legal work related to an appropriate project. I wouldn't have to just swear to it -- I could produce contracts, emails, notes, and work product to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

YES! The only people I have heard of being on Signal are Trump admin folks who are trying not to get caught. Who does that?!

Still unknown exactly who was paying Wallace, which also seems weird. He’s just a regular guy living in a two million dollar mansion in Austin who just makes little reports on social media but definitely doesn’t do anything except that and exclusively communicates on Signal. 👌

Every journalist I know, all of them Democrats. Also a lot of Dem political operatives.

What does being a democrat or republican have to do with this? That’s a bizarre bit of extra shading you added.

If journalists are using Signal to protect their sources and political operatives are hiding the money or other trails, while normal PR operatives like Nathan etc are using email and texting, what possible reason could little old Jed Wallace “just monitoring social media” have to use Signal and nothing else? It’s bizarre.

Dp, but you sound out of touch. Signal is very popular these days, particularly among government employees who want to discuss things like doge without doge knowing.

Again, feds have a reason to not want their communications to be discoverable rn, no? If all Jed Wallace is doing is “monitoring social media” in a completely above-board way, what possible need does he have to use Signal where messages can be set to “disappear” after a period of time? Doesn’t he need to be able to keep records of his totally above board and legit business communications, rather than have them disappear into the ether?

Again, everyone is using Signal these days, you are just out of touch. There is nothing nefarious about using it.

I don’t know a single person using Signal, and still don’t understand why someone would use this for work exclusively if they (like me) actually needed to keep track of their business records.

[Anonymous]

My teenage daughter also doesn’t know anyone who uses Signal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, if he’s trying so hard to get out of the case, why can’t he even say who exactly hired him and how much he received as payment?

His pleadings are very carefully worded. In the amended complaint he states that he was not hired by TAG or Melissa Nathan. He does not say he was hired by Wayfarer though. He states he merely monitored social media regarding the release of the movie. For Wayfarer? Was this info shared with Sony, who as distributor and with a major financial stake would have been heavily invested in the social media traffic regarding IEWU.

Of course, we know that Baldoni, Abel, and Nathan were not discussing the coverage if the movie so much as coverage of Lively and Baldoni. Including coverage of Lively unrelated to the movie. Why then would Wallace be mentioned in those conversations? And if they were concerned about the coverage if IEWU on social media, why would they be celebrating negative content about its star?

I'm open to the idea that Jed Wallace has nothing to do with any of this, but he's not doing a very good job of explaining it. We know Baldoni wanted to take Blake down online and we know this was a big part of why he hired Nathan. If Wallace has nothing to do with that, why can't he just produce a scope of work proposal or contract that explains what he did? I work as an independent contractor doing above board things, and if any of my clients got embroiled in litigation like this, it would be pretty easy for me to show how I only did ethical, legal work related to an appropriate project. I wouldn't have to just swear to it -- I could produce contracts, emails, notes, and work product to prove it.

Yes. 💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

YES! The only people I have heard of being on Signal are Trump admin folks who are trying not to get caught. Who does that?!

Still unknown exactly who was paying Wallace, which also seems weird. He’s just a regular guy living in a two million dollar mansion in Austin who just makes little reports on social media but definitely doesn’t do anything except that and exclusively communicates on Signal. 👌

Every journalist I know, all of them Democrats. Also a lot of Dem political operatives.

What does being a democrat or republican have to do with this? That’s a bizarre bit of extra shading you added.

If journalists are using Signal to protect their sources and political operatives are hiding the money or other trails, while normal PR operatives like Nathan etc are using email and texting, what possible reason could little old Jed Wallace “just monitoring social media” have to use Signal and nothing else? It’s bizarre.

Dp, but you sound out of touch. Signal is very popular these days, particularly among government employees who want to discuss things like doge without doge knowing.

Again, feds have a reason to not want their communications to be discoverable rn, no? If all Jed Wallace is doing is “monitoring social media” in a completely above-board way, what possible need does he have to use Signal where messages can be set to “disappear” after a period of time? Doesn’t he need to be able to keep records of his totally above board and legit business communications, rather than have them disappear into the ether?

Again, everyone is using Signal these days, you are just out of touch. There is nothing nefarious about using it.

It's basically all I use these days.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that the videos about Blake trying to get to the Barbie campaign shows her doing some very nefarious things as well with social media. It’s probably unethical but not necessarily illegal.

I’m sure what Jed does is strange but not sure that it would be illegal. Like Blake uses bots - it’s been proven multiple times… before she locked down her Instagram account friends, people were showing all the bot followers she was purchasing since she was shedding millions of followers. She was also using bots for the Barbie campaign. Is that illegal? Probably not.

It’s possible jed was going to do something like that, but hadn’t gotten around to it as they were watching a lot of things play organically and probably changing their strategy based on that. The Swedish journalist who dropped the unaired 2016 little baby bump video totally unprompted was a game changer. There was also a legion of Colleen Hoover fans who had been stewing online since Blake’s casting was announced- they thought she was too old and not the right fit. The drama with the marketing was like lighting a fire. Influencers who were trying to get clicks jumped all over all of this. Of course this would have changed the teams strategy. They were having their work done for them, likely far more successful than they could’ve ever been. Jen Abel or was it Nathan even texted, sarcastically, about how good they were, knowing that it wasn’t them at all.

The $2 million house in Austin doesn’t stand out to me at all. Austin is expensive and that’s not unreasonable. Wallace is 54 and sounds like he’s married, a dual income household affording a $2 million house in their mid 50s is really not out of the ordinary.

This industry is really weird and weird things are happening every day as we’re seeing play out in this case. It happens right under our noses and now we’re just seeing it more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The internalized misogyny on this thread is fascinating, and sad.

LOL, ah yes the feminist icon who *checks notes* is a pathological lying scam artist who ruins men's lives for sport. We should all rally behind her scheming narcissistic ass.

Maybe you guys should just admit that you are here in this thread to rage out on Lively more than you are here to talk up what a great guy Baldoni is. His new film A Nice Indian Boy has been out for 3 weeks now and has made less than a half million dollars. You guys are ostensibly big supporters, so how many of you have seen this movie? All the negative stuff about Baldoni (the prior law suits, the gross performative "look at me" nature of his charity and his "love" for his wife, etc, and the legitimately bad way he conducted the first half of the IEWU set (to the extent that he wanted to excuse the issues by blaming his neurodiverseness but his PR reps said no) -- all of this slides off of you while at the same time you avidly hunt for mistakes Lively made 15 years ago.

Why is it so much more fascinating on DCUM when women are the alleged baddie than it is when the man is? For all the terrible gross sh!t he did, Harvey Weinstein only got a 50 page thread on DCUM. Armie Hammer (the actor who said he wanted to cannibalize his girlfriend) got 20 pages. It's a little bit of extra spicy hatred that women on DCUM feel for women who they think have stepped outside of their proper sphere. John Hamm beats up a fraternity pledge so he loses a kidney and he gets a few pages; Louis CK whipped out his dick in front of younger female comedians and got 20 pages on DCUM; Alec Baldwin actually killed someone and he got a whopping 113 pages. But Lively experiences something at least arguably close to sexual harassment on set (even Baldoni's own PR reps admitted Lively honestly felt she experienced this), and you guys are like, 800 pages (this thread and the last 300 page one) of no, that is absolutely not sexual harassment, and moreover he didn't run a smear campaign, and moreover let's dredge up everything bad she has ever done for the last 20 years.

It's weird. It's a little bit of extra hatred and attention that the women perceived to step outside their place get. That's the misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The internalized misogyny on this thread is fascinating, and sad.

LOL, ah yes the feminist icon who *checks notes* is a pathological lying scam artist who ruins men's lives for sport. We should all rally behind her scheming narcissistic ass.

Maybe you guys should just admit that you are here in this thread to rage out on Lively more than you are here to talk up what a great guy Baldoni is. His new film A Nice Indian Boy has been out for 3 weeks now and has made less than a half million dollars. You guys are ostensibly big supporters, so how many of you have seen this movie? All the negative stuff about Baldoni (the prior law suits, the gross performative "look at me" nature of his charity and his "love" for his wife, etc, and the legitimately bad way he conducted the first half of the IEWU set (to the extent that he wanted to excuse the issues by blaming his neurodiverseness but his PR reps said no) -- all of this slides off of you while at the same time you avidly hunt for mistakes Lively made 15 years ago.

Why is it so much more fascinating on DCUM when women are the alleged baddie than it is when the man is? For all the terrible gross sh!t he did, Harvey Weinstein only got a 50 page thread on DCUM. Armie Hammer (the actor who said he wanted to cannibalize his girlfriend) got 20 pages. It's a little bit of extra spicy hatred that women on DCUM feel for women who they think have stepped outside of their proper sphere. John Hamm beats up a fraternity pledge so he loses a kidney and he gets a few pages; Louis CK whipped out his dick in front of younger female comedians and got 20 pages on DCUM; Alec Baldwin actually killed someone and he got a whopping 113 pages. But Lively experiences something at least arguably close to sexual harassment on set (even Baldoni's own PR reps admitted Lively honestly felt she experienced this), and you guys are like, 800 pages (this thread and the last 300 page one) of no, that is absolutely not sexual harassment, and moreover he didn't run a smear campaign, and moreover let's dredge up everything bad she has ever done for the last 20 years.

It's weird. It's a little bit of extra hatred and attention that the women perceived to step outside their place get. That's the misogyny.

We believe she made up sexual harassment charges. She literally had to change her pleadings because she was caught red handed lying about the dancing scene when the video was released. She lied about what she wore in the birth scene. She’s a liar. It’s unclear to me why anyone at this point would believe anything she says.

You do you, but don’t believe for a second your misogyny claims does anything but bare the lack of foundation in your underlying arguments.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The internalized misogyny on this thread is fascinating, and sad.

LOL, ah yes the feminist icon who *checks notes* is a pathological lying scam artist who ruins men's lives for sport. We should all rally behind her scheming narcissistic ass.

Maybe you guys should just admit that you are here in this thread to rage out on Lively more than you are here to talk up what a great guy Baldoni is. His new film A Nice Indian Boy has been out for 3 weeks now and has made less than a half million dollars. You guys are ostensibly big supporters, so how many of you have seen this movie? All the negative stuff about Baldoni (the prior law suits, the gross performative "look at me" nature of his charity and his "love" for his wife, etc, and the legitimately bad way he conducted the first half of the IEWU set (to the extent that he wanted to excuse the issues by blaming his neurodiverseness but his PR reps said no) -- all of this slides off of you while at the same time you avidly hunt for mistakes Lively made 15 years ago.

Why is it so much more fascinating on DCUM when women are the alleged baddie than it is when the man is? For all the terrible gross sh!t he did, Harvey Weinstein only got a 50 page thread on DCUM. Armie Hammer (the actor who said he wanted to cannibalize his girlfriend) got 20 pages. It's a little bit of extra spicy hatred that women on DCUM feel for women who they think have stepped outside of their proper sphere. John Hamm beats up a fraternity pledge so he loses a kidney and he gets a few pages; Louis CK whipped out his dick in front of younger female comedians and got 20 pages on DCUM; Alec Baldwin actually killed someone and he got a whopping 113 pages. But Lively experiences something at least arguably close to sexual harassment on set (even Baldoni's own PR reps admitted Lively honestly felt she experienced this), and you guys are like, 800 pages (this thread and the last 300 page one) of no, that is absolutely not sexual harassment, and moreover he didn't run a smear campaign, and moreover let's dredge up everything bad she has ever done for the last 20 years.

It's weird. It's a little bit of extra hatred and attention that the women perceived to step outside their place get. That's the misogyny.

We believe she made up sexual harassment charges. She literally had to change her pleadings because she was caught red handed lying about the dancing scene when the video was released. She lied about what she wore in the birth scene. She’s a liar. It’s unclear to me why anyone at this point would believe anything she says.

You do you, but don’t believe for a second your misogyny claims does anything but bare the lack of foundation in your underlying arguments.

So, yes, you are here to rage out on Lively, in the same way DCUM has produced 800 pages of disdain for Jen Hatmaker and over 2,000 (I stopped counting) of pages of rage (with bonus points for racism!) on Meghan Markle, but can't even manage 300 pages of rage for Weinstein, Alec Baldwin, Hamm, Louis CK, and Armie Hammer combined. Alec Baldwin killed someone but Hilaria's thread is 6x as long as his! Something makes the women of DCUM feel extra good when they hunt other women as opposed to men. (Hint: That extra special ingredient is the misogyny).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

Defamation Plaintiffs always ask for a lot for reputational damage and pain and suffering etc. 14M is not at all shocking. It doesn’t mean he expects to get it, but it sets the parameters.

That's fine but PP is suggesting that because Wallace's counter complaint paint him as an innocent nobody with no involvement whatsoever, Lively owes him 14 million, which makes no sense.

This is how litigation works. Advocacy. Asking for a lot of $ to set the stage. I hope you’re not the pro BL one on here pretending to be a litigator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The internalized misogyny on this thread is fascinating, and sad.

LOL, ah yes the feminist icon who *checks notes* is a pathological lying scam artist who ruins men's lives for sport. We should all rally behind her scheming narcissistic ass.

Maybe you guys should just admit that you are here in this thread to rage out on Lively more than you are here to talk up what a great guy Baldoni is. His new film A Nice Indian Boy has been out for 3 weeks now and has made less than a half million dollars. You guys are ostensibly big supporters, so how many of you have seen this movie? All the negative stuff about Baldoni (the prior law suits, the gross performative "look at me" nature of his charity and his "love" for his wife, etc, and the legitimately bad way he conducted the first half of the IEWU set (to the extent that he wanted to excuse the issues by blaming his neurodiverseness but his PR reps said no) -- all of this slides off of you while at the same time you avidly hunt for mistakes Lively made 15 years ago.

Why is it so much more fascinating on DCUM when women are the alleged baddie than it is when the man is? For all the terrible gross sh!t he did, Harvey Weinstein only got a 50 page thread on DCUM. Armie Hammer (the actor who said he wanted to cannibalize his girlfriend) got 20 pages. It's a little bit of extra spicy hatred that women on DCUM feel for women who they think have stepped outside of their proper sphere. John Hamm beats up a fraternity pledge so he loses a kidney and he gets a few pages; Louis CK whipped out his dick in front of younger female comedians and got 20 pages on DCUM; Alec Baldwin actually killed someone and he got a whopping 113 pages. But Lively experiences something at least arguably close to sexual harassment on set (even Baldoni's own PR reps admitted Lively honestly felt she experienced this), and you guys are like, 800 pages (this thread and the last 300 page one) of no, that is absolutely not sexual harassment, and moreover he didn't run a smear campaign, and moreover let's dredge up everything bad she has ever done for the last 20 years.

It's weird. It's a little bit of extra hatred and attention that the women perceived to step outside their place get. That's the misogyny.

We believe she made up sexual harassment charges. She literally had to change her pleadings because she was caught red handed lying about the dancing scene when the video was released. She lied about what she wore in the birth scene. She’s a liar. It’s unclear to me why anyone at this point would believe anything she says.

You do you, but don’t believe for a second your misogyny claims does anything but bare the lack of foundation in your underlying arguments.

So, yes, you are here to rage out on Lively, in the same way DCUM has produced 800 pages of disdain for Jen Hatmaker and over 2,000 (I stopped counting) of pages of rage (with bonus points for racism!) on Meghan Markle, but can't even manage 300 pages of rage for Weinstein, Alec Baldwin, Hamm, Louis CK, and Armie Hammer combined. Alec Baldwin killed someone but Hilaria's thread is 6x as long as his! Something makes the women of DCUM feel extra good when they hunt other women as opposed to men. (Hint: That extra special ingredient is the misogyny).

As pointed out above, two thirds of the space here, if not more, is taken by long, repetitive pro Lively posts. Sorry to disappoint.

Can’t comment on the other threads, haven’t personally even open them. Seems you spend a lot more time on dcum.