Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait did the judge rule on the protective order or just push it out?

Seems that he said it isn’t needed at this point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

YES THIS

This is such a good point. She had so much say and control and was wildly demanding and uncooperative.

She said she was “spicy” and “never used teeth” in a text to try and get him to give her very quick feedback about her unrequested rewrite of a scene. I wish someone else here would even acknowledge how the only written unprofessional sexual s
commentary we’ve seen is from her to him, talking circuitously about sucking him off. Unless this becomes a game of Twister between a group of pretzel-makers, it is very very very hard for me to ignore her power and her awful attempted coquetry directed at someone she claims harassed her. It just doesn’t wash.

LSA stands for Lipstick Alley. One thread of commentary has been about Lively’s accusations about Heath “looking” while she pumped or breastfed, I don’t remember which. Heath is a mixed-race black man and she says she asked him to have a conversation with his back to her and to not look at her, and some posters drew the Emmitt Till inference. I agree with them. I agree with the take that she weaponized a weakness that she never actually had against multiple people on that set. When she’s telling some of the money set to not look when she’s invited them in and she’s had two female ADs fired, I won’t go along with her victim claims.

I feel like this is one of the most-often misstated elements of her complaint. I've corrected it numerous times in this thread.

The allegation against Heath does not involve breastfeeding. On the second day of shooting, Lively had registered a complaint regarding some of Baldoni's behavior with Wayfarer. At the end of the shooting day, Lively was in the makeup trailer having body makeup removed by makeup artists (plural). She was topless. According to Lively, Heath insisted on entering to discuss her concerns over her request that he wait outside until she could get dressed. She says she then asked him to turn around as she was topless, and he did, but then she looked up at some point and he was looking at her.

Baldoni's complaint says that the issue of scheduling was caused by Lively, necessitating that the meeting be had at that moment. His complaints states that Lively later joked about Heath seeing her topless and did not seem upset about it.

Regardless of which version of the story you believe (if any),

(1) She wasn't breastfeeding, she was fully topless and having makeup removed, which is a function of her job and not an accommodation of her nursing schedule.

(2) It wasn't her trailer and there's no evidence she invited Heath in.

(3) He definitely at some point saw her fully topless.

I get annoyed on this point because this is one of THE most concrete and clear allegations in Lively's complaint -- I think it would be really hard to argue that if Heath entered that trailer over her explicit objections and then looked at her topless after she asked him to turn his back, that there isn't an element of harassment there. There would have been a number of ways to handle that situation that don't involve seeing Lively's boobs.

The idea that this has anything to do with Emmett Till is so insane and inflammatory and frankly abusive of Emmett Till's memory that I refuse to even get into it. People need to freaking check themselves.

What is your standing exactly to say any of the member of any forum can’t analogizs to whatever they see fit? They call Lively “Plantation Khaleesi” because of her freely made choices, is that ok with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Given the performance of Blake’s legal team so far, I don’t think they have a reason to worry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

YES THIS

This is such a good point. She had so much say and control and was wildly demanding and uncooperative.

She said she was “spicy” and “never used teeth” in a text to try and get him to give her very quick feedback about her unrequested rewrite of a scene. I wish someone else here would even acknowledge how the only written unprofessional sexual s
commentary we’ve seen is from her to him, talking circuitously about sucking him off. Unless this becomes a game of Twister between a group of pretzel-makers, it is very very very hard for me to ignore her power and her awful attempted coquetry directed at someone she claims harassed her. It just doesn’t wash.

LSA stands for Lipstick Alley. One thread of commentary has been about Lively’s accusations about Heath “looking” while she pumped or breastfed, I don’t remember which. Heath is a mixed-race black man and she says she asked him to have a conversation with his back to her and to not look at her, and some posters drew the Emmitt Till inference. I agree with them. I agree with the take that she weaponized a weakness that she never actually had against multiple people on that set. When she’s telling some of the money set to not look when she’s invited them in and she’s had two female ADs fired, I won’t go along with her victim claims.

I feel like this is one of the most-often misstated elements of her complaint. I've corrected it numerous times in this thread.

The allegation against Heath does not involve breastfeeding. On the second day of shooting, Lively had registered a complaint regarding some of Baldoni's behavior with Wayfarer. At the end of the shooting day, Lively was in the makeup trailer having body makeup removed by makeup artists (plural). She was topless. According to Lively, Heath insisted on entering to discuss her concerns over her request that he wait outside until she could get dressed. She says she then asked him to turn around as she was topless, and he did, but then she looked up at some point and he was looking at her.

Baldoni's complaint says that the issue of scheduling was caused by Lively, necessitating that the meeting be had at that moment. His complaints states that Lively later joked about Heath seeing her topless and did not seem upset about it.

Regardless of which version of the story you believe (if any),

(1) She wasn't breastfeeding, she was fully topless and having makeup removed, which is a function of her job and not an accommodation of her nursing schedule.

(2) It wasn't her trailer and there's no evidence she invited Heath in.

(3) He definitely at some point saw her fully topless.

I get annoyed on this point because this is one of THE most concrete and clear allegations in Lively's complaint -- I think it would be really hard to argue that if Heath entered that trailer over her explicit objections and then looked at her topless after she asked him to turn his back, that there isn't an element of harassment there. There would have been a number of ways to handle that situation that don't involve seeing Lively's boobs.

The idea that this has anything to do with Emmett Till is so insane and inflammatory and frankly abusive of Emmett Till's memory that I refuse to even get into it. People need to freaking check themselves.

What is your standing exactly to say any of the member of any forum can’t analogizs to whatever they see fit? They call Lively “Plantation Khaleesi” because of her freely made choices, is that ok with you?

This isn't court, I don't need "standing."

I am correcting a frequently repeated factual inaccuracy. Heath is not alleged to have walked in on Lively while she was nursing or pumping. He is not alleged to have walked into her trailer, and he was not invited into the trailer. Lively was naked from the waist up as she was having makeup removed.

What you do with that info is up to you, but people need to stop just making up facts because they can't keep them straight. The allegations about people coming into Lively's trailer while she was nursing are separate and involve Baldoni, not Heath.

If you want to call Lively offensive names because it makes you feel good to do so, go for it I guess. I'd ask yourself why you feel the need to. I find it's easy enough to just call the people involved in this case by their actual names, but I have emotional distance from this situation so maybe that's the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

Ryan is a conniver too. That better? You conspiracy theory nitwit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

She wasn’t retaliated against. She does not have strong retaliation claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

I can't remember either and don't have time right now to dig through Baldoni's complaint.

I remember specifically the discussion of Wallace in Lively's complaint because it was also highlighted in the NYT's piece which focused much more on the PR angle and got more into who Wallace is. In Lively's complaint, there are texts between the PR people about hiring Jed and then at some point they are discussing the negative sentiment towards Lively online and say something like "thanks to Jed's people." That's quite damning because it indicates that not only was Jed hired but he engaged in work for them (and to be clear, the work Jed Wallace does is hiring online bots to astroturf, that's his business) and that they attributed positive results to it. If Wallace is deposed and communications between the PR folks, Baldoni, and Wallace discovered that detail this arrangement, it's going to be very hard for Baldoni to defend against the retaliation side.

I know he's arguing that she was torpedoing her reputation on her own but I don't know that this defense would work if he definitely engaged Wallace and the astroturfing happened. Especially if they can perhaps pull records of Wallace's "bots" and link them directly to actual posts that got traction on Reddit and elsewhere. I also think this would be especially bad for Baldoni from a PR perspective because I anticipate that the actual posts Wallace's team put ups are pretty bad.

I'm super curious about this part of the case in part because I'm genuinely curious as to whether DCUM was astroturfed (would be surprised but who knows) or if some astroturfed comments from Reddit or elsewhere wound up here. I am not a Lively fan and absolutely participated in the pile on against her on this site back in August. So it's personal to me -- were my feelings organic or was I buying into an online narrative? Did I get had? I know I'm not the only person who had these thoughts when Lively's complaint first came out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

She wasn’t retaliated against. She does not have strong retaliation claims.

Dp is that because you think what Justin and team did doesn’t constitute retaliation, or do you think Jed didn’t do anything period because the Blake backlash was self-inflicted? Would love to hear your thoughts on why she doesn’t have strong retaliation claims because there’s one poster here who insists those claims are extremely strong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The person who said @notactuallygolden gives shitty analysis never elaborated on why. So you were just trolling, got it. Anyways, she has some new TikTok vids up on the hearing (she is not a lunatic who is pro-any side, just FYI).

I am not on TikTok would you mind a summary of tbe info?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

I can't remember either and don't have time right now to dig through Baldoni's complaint.

I remember specifically the discussion of Wallace in Lively's complaint because it was also highlighted in the NYT's piece which focused much more on the PR angle and got more into who Wallace is. In Lively's complaint, there are texts between the PR people about hiring Jed and then at some point they are discussing the negative sentiment towards Lively online and say something like "thanks to Jed's people." That's quite damning because it indicates that not only was Jed hired but he engaged in work for them (and to be clear, the work Jed Wallace does is hiring online bots to astroturf, that's his business) and that they attributed positive results to it. If Wallace is deposed and communications between the PR folks, Baldoni, and Wallace discovered that detail this arrangement, it's going to be very hard for Baldoni to defend against the retaliation side.

I know he's arguing that she was torpedoing her reputation on her own but I don't know that this defense would work if he definitely engaged Wallace and the astroturfing happened. Especially if they can perhaps pull records of Wallace's "bots" and link them directly to actual posts that got traction on Reddit and elsewhere. I also think this would be especially bad for Baldoni from a PR perspective because I anticipate that the actual posts Wallace's team put ups are pretty bad.

I'm super curious about this part of the case in part because I'm genuinely curious as to whether DCUM was astroturfed (would be surprised but who knows) or if some astroturfed comments from Reddit or elsewhere wound up here. I am not a Lively fan and absolutely participated in the pile on against her on this site back in August. So it's personal to me -- were my feelings organic or was I buying into an online narrative? Did I get had? I know I'm not the only person who had these thoughts when Lively's complaint first came out!

Omg they are not going to waste their time astroturfing DCUM. Actual lol. They’re going to invest time doing so on Reddit, TikTok, Twitter and Insta. You keep claiming you’re not on Lively’s side but you have a particular way of twisting every argument in her favor that is, as another poster put it, “anti-fact.” Your writing style is extremely noticeable.

[Anonymous]

Guessing we won't be seeing Khaleesi in the suite with Taylor Swift at the Super Bowl this year.

[Anonymous]

JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

I can't remember either and don't have time right now to dig through Baldoni's complaint.

I remember specifically the discussion of Wallace in Lively's complaint because it was also highlighted in the NYT's piece which focused much more on the PR angle and got more into who Wallace is. In Lively's complaint, there are texts between the PR people about hiring Jed and then at some point they are discussing the negative sentiment towards Lively online and say something like "thanks to Jed's people." That's quite damning because it indicates that not only was Jed hired but he engaged in work for them (and to be clear, the work Jed Wallace does is hiring online bots to astroturf, that's his business) and that they attributed positive results to it. If Wallace is deposed and communications between the PR folks, Baldoni, and Wallace discovered that detail this arrangement, it's going to be very hard for Baldoni to defend against the retaliation side.

I know he's arguing that she was torpedoing her reputation on her own but I don't know that this defense would work if he definitely engaged Wallace and the astroturfing happened. Especially if they can perhaps pull records of Wallace's "bots" and link them directly to actual posts that got traction on Reddit and elsewhere. I also think this would be especially bad for Baldoni from a PR perspective because I anticipate that the actual posts Wallace's team put ups are pretty bad.

I'm super curious about this part of the case in part because I'm genuinely curious as to whether DCUM was astroturfed (would be surprised but who knows) or if some astroturfed comments from Reddit or elsewhere wound up here. I am not a Lively fan and absolutely participated in the pile on against her on this site back in August. So it's personal to me -- were my feelings organic or was I buying into an online narrative? Did I get had? I know I'm not the only person who had these thoughts when Lively's complaint first came out!

Omg they are not going to waste their time astroturfing DCUM. Actual lol. They’re going to invest time doing so on Reddit, TikTok, Twitter and Insta. You keep claiming you’re not on Lively’s side but you have a particular way of twisting every argument in her favor that is, as another poster put it, “anti-fact.” Your writing style is extremely noticeable.

I'm the PP and I don't understand how what I wrote above is "anti-fact." I'm referencing things in the complaint and info about Wallace in the press. Where is the lie?

I think you are mad because for some reason you are very committed to a narrative here and I'm posting stuff that doesn't fit your narrative. That doesn't make it untrue. It means I have a different take than you.