Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed here, but there’s a thread on Reddit pointing out that JB’s texts messages shows he chose a much cheaper package than those initially offered by Melissa Nathan and he got the price down by removing social manipulation. This seems pretty believable. Someone tries to sell you a this huge package and you say no I don’t need all of that, just this and this. That seems to be what Justin did, which explains why Jed Wallace has gone under oath saying there was no social manipulation. I don’t think Blake’s team is going to find evidence of a smear campaign.

Can you link to the Reddit thread?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/aU3A4MOwIJ

Great question from a post:

“I want to know is how many other people has she done this too? Because you know this isn’t the first time she’s pulled this shit. She’s surrounded by people who have enabled her to think she can get away with it too.”

Nailed it. This appears to be a well-oiled scheme. She/they have likely done similar before. It makes me think she’s Ryan’s beard, so he really doesn’t care that she baits male costars, et al for coercion purposes? Who in the heck knows. Dangerous strivers who will do anything and ruin anyone in their way for more money, power and status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed here, but there’s a thread on Reddit pointing out that JB’s texts messages shows he chose a much cheaper package than those initially offered by Melissa Nathan and he got the price down by removing social manipulation. This seems pretty believable. Someone tries to sell you a this huge package and you say no I don’t need all of that, just this and this. That seems to be what Justin did, which explains why Jed Wallace has gone under oath saying there was no social manipulation. I don’t think Blake’s team is going to find evidence of a smear campaign.

Can you link to the Reddit thread?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/aU3A4MOwIJ

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea that this was some longterm plot by Blake and Ryan, or even that they seized an opportunity to allege SH in order to take over the movie, is a sign that you've been thinking too much about this whole thing and your imagination is taking over. It does not make sense. This is every bit as fanciful and weird as a Lively supporter thinking that Baldoni cast Lively so that he could SH her. No. I sincerely believe both these people went into this situation with good intentions.

I think they had serious culture clash and it spiraled. I also think that Baldoni was tone deaf at times in a way that compounded problems that otherwise could have been addressed and moved on from. Like the whole thing with the birth scene. He shouldn't have asked her to be nude in that scene when it wasn't scripted that way, and he shouldn't have been pushy about it. But fine, they found a middle ground and it got filmed. Then the next day he's telling Heath to go show Lively Heath's wife's birth video? Dude, why? This is a sign of someone who can't bear to not win an argument and who lacks boundaries. I don't think it's SH, I just think it's super annoying. I think a lot of the stuff Blake alleges is in this category -- Baldoni doing something that is a little weird to people who don't know him, Blake reacting negatively, and then Baldoni doubling down like "no really, this is good, we *should* discuss our history with pornography more." He needed someone to rein him in and tell him to lay off and let some of this stuff go. He seems like a kind of intense guy who has very specific ideas about how people should interact (in line with his whole "male vulnerability" schtick from his podcast and books) and he needed to understand that not everyone likes that and not to force it on people.

Lively, for her part, just seems to have been in a sensitive, vulnerable place coming off the birth of her fourth child, and I think overreacted to certain things or viewed behavior that was simply tone deaf or dumb as intentional. I say this as someone who has been through PPD and knows it's hard. I actually have a lot of empathy for her.

Both people here needed to have people around them who cooled them off and encouraged them to be more understanding and to let stuff go. Instead the opposite seems to be true. I think Baldoni got spun up by Heath and the billionaire dude and also that Wayfarer might have a kind of insular culture because of the religion angle and that gave them an "us versus them" attitude. Meanwhile I think RR totally encouraged Lively to nuclear and not give an inch. And that was the problem. Then once Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman were involved, I think it got way worse because Nathan is extremely aggressive in her PR approach and we can all see that Freedman doesn't have a light touch.

Basically every choice either of them made after those first few weeks of filming with all the little issues, just ramped up the tensions and made things worse. This is why it's good to have people in your life who are like "yes I agree with you but do you really want to fight over this, or do you want to just get through it and move on?" Both of them needed a friend who would tell them to just suck it up, finish the movie and promotion, and then forget about the whole thing.

Nice attempt at a pivot. You must get paid by the word

Omg that would explain so much. I think you are onto something with this poster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I thought it was interesting that both Lively and Liman specifically made a point of not mentioning Taylor Swift's name in any of their filings on the Motion to Strike issue. It was only Freedman who kept invoking Swift over and over and over again, basically doing what the judge was accusing him of doing, and using her name for publicity and ego gratification.

Blake is the one who dragged Taylor into this. Used her name because she knows she has no clout.

Just days ago Blake’s lawyers made a statement to the press invoking Taylor’s name after the subpoena went out. Nice try though.

Fwiw, Gottlieb's statement itself (what was quoted of it in People) doesn't specifically invoke Swift's name. People magazine supplies that context, but Gottlieb doesn't throw Swift's name around. https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946 Also, what's interesting about that public statement from Gottlieb is that by making it directly to the press and not on the docket, he opens himself up to defamation claims if it's not true. He released one statement noting the issue and the fact that the claims were not true. The only time his docket filings invoked Swift's name were, I think, in citing the crazy Daily Mail Ruth Gordon article released 5 minutes after Freedman's letter (now struck) was filed on the docket.

Afaict, Freedman hasn't done the same, but has completely his behind the litigation privilege in his docket filings, where he used Swift's name over and over. So: One party makes headlines by putting Taylor Swift's name all over the docket via multiple court filings. The other party and the judge keeps Swift's name out of their filings in response as much as possible, and Gottlieb makes one statement to the press denying the truth of Freedman's allegations (while also still not using Swift's name in that statement afaict).

One party is clearly trying to pull Swift into the case despite Tree's statements that she would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, while the other party tries to keep her out as much as they can. It's weird because I don't think they're friends anymore, but at least Lively's attorneys are trying to respect Swift's boundaries. However, if Freedman's affidavit is true, then wtf? What would the point of trying to respect Swift's boundaries at this point even be? I guess to try to keep her out of the case as much as possible so that whatever bad info involving Gottlieb and Venable exists doesn't come to light. Very interested to see what happens with the Motion to Quash in DC.

Dp, but if one is arguing there has been attempts to intimidate a witness, one usually names the witness. Seems obvious, but I guess not to you.

What about the person making the accusation? Doesn't "one" usually identify that person as well, so that people can evaluate if they are credible or would even have been in a position to know? Especially when the accusation is that this alleged threat happened in a phone call between two lawyers and neither of them is corroborating this allegations?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed here, but there’s a thread on Reddit pointing out that JB’s texts messages shows he chose a much cheaper package than those initially offered by Melissa Nathan and he got the price down by removing social manipulation. This seems pretty believable. Someone tries to sell you a this huge package and you say no I don’t need all of that, just this and this. That seems to be what Justin did, which explains why Jed Wallace has gone under oath saying there was no social manipulation. I don’t think Blake’s team is going to find evidence of a smear campaign.

Can you link to the Reddit thread?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I thought it was interesting that both Lively and Liman specifically made a point of not mentioning Taylor Swift's name in any of their filings on the Motion to Strike issue. It was only Freedman who kept invoking Swift over and over and over again, basically doing what the judge was accusing him of doing, and using her name for publicity and ego gratification.

Blake is the one who dragged Taylor into this. Used her name because she knows she has no clout.

Just days ago Blake’s lawyers made a statement to the press invoking Taylor’s name after the subpoena went out. Nice try though.

Fwiw, Gottlieb's statement itself (what was quoted of it in People) doesn't specifically invoke Swift's name. People magazine supplies that context, but Gottlieb doesn't throw Swift's name around. https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946 Also, what's interesting about that public statement from Gottlieb is that by making it directly to the press and not on the docket, he opens himself up to defamation claims if it's not true. He released one statement noting the issue and the fact that the claims were not true. The only time his docket filings invoked Swift's name were, I think, in citing the crazy Daily Mail Ruth Gordon article released 5 minutes after Freedman's letter (now struck) was filed on the docket.

Afaict, Freedman hasn't done the same, but has completely his behind the litigation privilege in his docket filings, where he used Swift's name over and over. So: One party makes headlines by putting Taylor Swift's name all over the docket via multiple court filings. The other party and the judge keeps Swift's name out of their filings in response as much as possible, and Gottlieb makes one statement to the press denying the truth of Freedman's allegations (while also still not using Swift's name in that statement afaict).

One party is clearly trying to pull Swift into the case despite Tree's statements that she would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, while the other party tries to keep her out as much as they can. It's weird because I don't think they're friends anymore, but at least Lively's attorneys are trying to respect Swift's boundaries. However, if Freedman's affidavit is true, then wtf? What would the point of trying to respect Swift's boundaries at this point even be? I guess to try to keep her out of the case as much as possible so that whatever bad info involving Gottlieb and Venable exists doesn't come to light. Very interested to see what happens with the Motion to Quash in DC.

Dp, but if one is arguing there has been attempts to intimidate a witness, one usually names the witness. Seems obvious, but I guess not to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I thought it was interesting that both Lively and Liman specifically made a point of not mentioning Taylor Swift's name in any of their filings on the Motion to Strike issue. It was only Freedman who kept invoking Swift over and over and over again, basically doing what the judge was accusing him of doing, and using her name for publicity and ego gratification.

Blake is the one who dragged Taylor into this. Used her name because she knows she has no clout.

Just days ago Blake’s lawyers made a statement to the press invoking Taylor’s name after the subpoena went out. Nice try though.

Fwiw, Gottlieb's statement itself (what was quoted of it in People) doesn't specifically invoke Swift's name. People magazine supplies that context, but Gottlieb doesn't throw Swift's name around. https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946 Also, what's interesting about that public statement from Gottlieb is that by making it directly to the press and not on the docket, he opens himself up to defamation claims if it's not true. He released one statement noting the issue and the fact that the claims were not true. The only time his docket filings invoked Swift's name were, I think, in citing the crazy Daily Mail Ruth Gordon article released 5 minutes after Freedman's letter (now struck) was filed on the docket.

Afaict, Freedman hasn't done the same, but has completely his behind the litigation privilege in his docket filings, where he used Swift's name over and over. So: One party makes headlines by putting Taylor Swift's name all over the docket via multiple court filings. The other party and the judge keeps Swift's name out of their filings in response as much as possible, and Gottlieb makes one statement to the press denying the truth of Freedman's allegations (while also still not using Swift's name in that statement afaict).

One party is clearly trying to pull Swift into the case despite Tree's statements that she would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, while the other party tries to keep her out as much as they can. It's weird because I don't think they're friends anymore, but at least Lively's attorneys are trying to respect Swift's boundaries. However, if Freedman's affidavit is true, then wtf? What would the point of trying to respect Swift's boundaries at this point even be? I guess to try to keep her out of the case as much as possible so that whatever bad info involving Gottlieb and Venable exists doesn't come to light. Very interested to see what happens with the Motion to Quash in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea that this was some longterm plot by Blake and Ryan, or even that they seized an opportunity to allege SH in order to take over the movie, is a sign that you've been thinking too much about this whole thing and your imagination is taking over. It does not make sense. This is every bit as fanciful and weird as a Lively supporter thinking that Baldoni cast Lively so that he could SH her. No. I sincerely believe both these people went into this situation with good intentions.

I think they had serious culture clash and it spiraled. I also think that Baldoni was tone deaf at times in a way that compounded problems that otherwise could have been addressed and moved on from. Like the whole thing with the birth scene. He shouldn't have asked her to be nude in that scene when it wasn't scripted that way, and he shouldn't have been pushy about it. But fine, they found a middle ground and it got filmed. Then the next day he's telling Heath to go show Lively Heath's wife's birth video? Dude, why? This is a sign of someone who can't bear to not win an argument and who lacks boundaries. I don't think it's SH, I just think it's super annoying. I think a lot of the stuff Blake alleges is in this category -- Baldoni doing something that is a little weird to people who don't know him, Blake reacting negatively, and then Baldoni doubling down like "no really, this is good, we *should* discuss our history with pornography more." He needed someone to rein him in and tell him to lay off and let some of this stuff go. He seems like a kind of intense guy who has very specific ideas about how people should interact (in line with his whole "male vulnerability" schtick from his podcast and books) and he needed to understand that not everyone likes that and not to force it on people.

Lively, for her part, just seems to have been in a sensitive, vulnerable place coming off the birth of her fourth child, and I think overreacted to certain things or viewed behavior that was simply tone deaf or dumb as intentional. I say this as someone who has been through PPD and knows it's hard. I actually have a lot of empathy for her.

Both people here needed to have people around them who cooled them off and encouraged them to be more understanding and to let stuff go. Instead the opposite seems to be true. I think Baldoni got spun up by Heath and the billionaire dude and also that Wayfarer might have a kind of insular culture because of the religion angle and that gave them an "us versus them" attitude. Meanwhile I think RR totally encouraged Lively to nuclear and not give an inch. And that was the problem. Then once Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman were involved, I think it got way worse because Nathan is extremely aggressive in her PR approach and we can all see that Freedman doesn't have a light touch.

Basically every choice either of them made after those first few weeks of filming with all the little issues, just ramped up the tensions and made things worse. This is why it's good to have people in your life who are like "yes I agree with you but do you really want to fight over this, or do you want to just get through it and move on?" Both of them needed a friend who would tell them to just suck it up, finish the movie and promotion, and then forget about the whole thing.

Nice attempt at a pivot. You must get paid by the word

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed here, but there’s a thread on Reddit pointing out that JB’s texts messages shows he chose a much cheaper package than those initially offered by Melissa Nathan and he got the price down by removing social manipulation. This seems pretty believable. Someone tries to sell you a this huge package and you say no I don’t need all of that, just this and this. That seems to be what Justin did, which explains why Jed Wallace has gone under oath saying there was no social manipulation. I don’t think Blake’s team is going to find evidence of a smear campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I thought it was interesting that both Lively and Liman specifically made a point of not mentioning Taylor Swift's name in any of their filings on the Motion to Strike issue. It was only Freedman who kept invoking Swift over and over and over again, basically doing what the judge was accusing him of doing, and using her name for publicity and ego gratification.

Blake is the one who dragged Taylor into this. Used her name because she knows she has no clout.

Just days ago Blake’s lawyers made a statement to the press invoking Taylor’s name after the subpoena went out. Nice try though.

Fwiw, Gottlieb's statement itself (what was quoted of it in People) doesn't specifically invoke Swift's name. People magazine supplies that context, but Gottlieb doesn't throw Swift's name around. https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946 Also, what's interesting about that public statement from Gottlieb is that by making it directly to the press and not on the docket, he opens himself up to defamation claims if it's not true. He released one statement noting the issue and the fact that the claims were not true. The only time his docket filings invoked Swift's name were, I think, in citing the crazy Daily Mail Ruth Gordon article released 5 minutes after Freedman's letter (now struck) was filed on the docket.

Afaict, Freedman hasn't done the same, but has completely his behind the litigation privilege in his docket filings, where he used Swift's name over and over. So: One party makes headlines by putting Taylor Swift's name all over the docket via multiple court filings. The other party and the judge keeps Swift's name out of their filings in response as much as possible, and Gottlieb makes one statement to the press denying the truth of Freedman's allegations (while also still not using Swift's name in that statement afaict).

One party is clearly trying to pull Swift into the case despite Tree's statements that she would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, while the other party tries to keep her out as much as they can. It's weird because I don't think they're friends anymore, but at least Lively's attorneys are trying to respect Swift's boundaries. However, if Freedman's affidavit is true, then wtf? What would the point of trying to respect Swift's boundaries at this point even be? I guess to try to keep her out of the case as much as possible so that whatever bad info involving Gottlieb and Venable exists doesn't come to light. Very interested to see what happens with the Motion to Quash in DC.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed here, but there’s a thread on Reddit pointing out that JB’s texts messages shows he chose a much cheaper package than those initially offered by Melissa Nathan and he got the price down by removing social manipulation. This seems pretty believable. Someone tries to sell you a this huge package and you say no I don’t need all of that, just this and this. That seems to be what Justin did, which explains why Jed Wallace has gone under oath saying there was no social manipulation. I don’t think Blake’s team is going to find evidence of a smear campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I thought it was interesting that both Lively and Liman specifically made a point of not mentioning Taylor Swift's name in any of their filings on the Motion to Strike issue. It was only Freedman who kept invoking Swift over and over and over again, basically doing what the judge was accusing him of doing, and using her name for publicity and ego gratification.

Blake is the one who dragged Taylor into this. Used her name because she knows she has no clout.

Just days ago Blake’s lawyers made a statement to the press invoking Taylor’s name after the subpoena went out. Nice try though.