Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, PP is wrong that it matters if this is different from what other PR firms do. No. If it’s found that Lively reasonably reported SH, Baldoni is not allowed to retaliate against her. And planting stories about her is retaliation, whether PR firms do it all the time or not.

I fully believe PR firms do this ish all the time. But that’s why Lively sued! I don’t believe they’re allowed to retaliate here, so this letter is devastating to their case imho.

This. The issue is not that Baldoni engaged PR to smear Blake (and it's true people do this all the time, unfortunately). The problem is that she was an employee who had reported workplace harassment and that the PR campaign against her was intended to discredit her so that if she went public with her claims, people wouldn't believe her.

*That* is what is illegal. This is an employment case. You are not allowed to retaliate against employees or former employees for raising harassment or workplace safety issues. This would be true for a paper company or the grocery store too. You could remove all the PR people and the celebrity nature of it, and make this a case of a woman who worked at a grocery store, complained multiple times that her supervisor's behavior was harassing and made her uncomfortable. If that supervisor later spread rumors about the woman being a "mean girl" or criticizing how she looks or dresses, he could be sued for retaliation.

Any decent HR department or employment lawyer will tell you -- if an employee brings a complaint against you in the workplace, refer the matter to the lawyers or whoever handles that process and SAY NOTHING. Do not discuss the employee outside of work. This is like the first rule of handling workplace harassment complaints.

Except this rant is not remotely what happened (for one, there was no actual sexual harassment, but we’ll skip that for now). Blake took many actions after the so-called agreement to cast Baldoni in a narrative light, including but definitely not limited to, taking control of the film, and not allowing him to attend his own film premiere like a normal cast member. Further, there is zero evidence thus far that the pr firm planted anything false about Blake as opposed to attempts to pprtray Justin in a positive light or truthfully portray actual occurrences, neither of which is retaliation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, PP is wrong that it matters if this is different from what other PR firms do. No. If it’s found that Lively reasonably reported SH, Baldoni is not allowed to retaliate against her. And planting stories about her is retaliation, whether PR firms do it all the time or not.

I fully believe PR firms do this ish all the time. But that’s why Lively sued! I don’t believe they’re allowed to retaliate here, so this letter is devastating to their case imho.

This. The issue is not that Baldoni engaged PR to smear Blake (and it's true people do this all the time, unfortunately). The problem is that she was an employee who had reported workplace harassment and that the PR campaign against her was intended to discredit her so that if she went public with her claims, people wouldn't believe her.

*That* is what is illegal. This is an employment case. You are not allowed to retaliate against employees or former employees for raising harassment or workplace safety issues. This would be true for a paper company or the grocery store too. You could remove all the PR people and the celebrity nature of it, and make this a case of a woman who worked at a grocery store, complained multiple times that her supervisor's behavior was harassing and made her uncomfortable. If that supervisor later spread rumors about the woman being a "mean girl" or criticizing how she looks or dresses, he could be sued for retaliation.

Any decent HR department or employment lawyer will tell you -- if an employee brings a complaint against you in the workplace, refer the matter to the lawyers or whoever handles that process and SAY NOTHING. Do not discuss the employee outside of work. This is like the first rule of handling workplace harassment complaints.

Except this rant is not remotely what happened (for one, there was no actual sexual harassment, but we’ll skip that for now). Blake took many actions after the so-called agreement to cast Baldoni in a narrative light, including but definitely not limited to, taking control of the film, and not allowing him to attend his own film premiere like a normal cast member. Further, there is zero evidence thus far that the pr firm planted anything false about Blake as opposed to attempts to pprtray Justin in a positive light or truthfully portray actual occurrences, neither of which is retaliation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isabella has been trying to evade service of her notice of deposition. I thought Blake said she was eager to testify?

Is she trying to evade service or was she just not home during the time they tried to serve her in LA or NY? I heard she'd been working in Asia this summer so this might just be a situation of being unable to receive service because she was working out of the country. It's pretty normal for an actress to be away from their home for months at a time.

Read the motion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, PP is wrong that it matters if this is different from what other PR firms do. No. If it’s found that Lively reasonably reported SH, Baldoni is not allowed to retaliate against her. And planting stories about her is retaliation, whether PR firms do it all the time or not.

I fully believe PR firms do this ish all the time. But that’s why Lively sued! I don’t believe they’re allowed to retaliate here, so this letter is devastating to their case imho.

This. The issue is not that Baldoni engaged PR to smear Blake (and it's true people do this all the time, unfortunately). The problem is that she was an employee who had reported workplace harassment and that the PR campaign against her was intended to discredit her so that if she went public with her claims, people wouldn't believe her.

*That* is what is illegal. This is an employment case. You are not allowed to retaliate against employees or former employees for raising harassment or workplace safety issues. This would be true for a paper company or the grocery store too. You could remove all the PR people and the celebrity nature of it, and make this a case of a woman who worked at a grocery store, complained multiple times that her supervisor's behavior was harassing and made her uncomfortable. If that supervisor later spread rumors about the woman being a "mean girl" or criticizing how she looks or dresses, he could be sued for retaliation.

Any decent HR department or employment lawyer will tell you -- if an employee brings a complaint against you in the workplace, refer the matter to the lawyers or whoever handles that process and SAY NOTHING. Do not discuss the employee outside of work. This is like the first rule of handling workplace harassment complaints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake has two emails that outline a dozen or more potential actions Wallace and TAG might pursue before Wallace as even fully retained and absolutely zero beyond that? No wonder they continue to focus on the post complaint period, which is also going no where.

We don't actually know what they have, most of discovery is still under seal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isabella has been trying to evade service of her notice of deposition. I thought Blake said she was eager to testify?

Is she trying to evade service or was she just not home during the time they tried to serve her in LA or NY? I heard she'd been working in Asia this summer so this might just be a situation of being unable to receive service because she was working out of the country. It's pretty normal for an actress to be away from their home for months at a time.

Anonymous wrote:So Blake has two emails that outline a dozen or more potential actions Wallace and TAG might pursue before Wallace as even fully retained and absolutely zero beyond that? No wonder they continue to focus on the post complaint period, which is also going no where.

Anonymous wrote:Isabella has been trying to evade service of her notice of deposition. I thought Blake said she was eager to testify?

Anonymous wrote:Also, PP is wrong that it matters if this is different from what other PR firms do. No. If it’s found that Lively reasonably reported SH, Baldoni is not allowed to retaliate against her. And planting stories about her is retaliation, whether PR firms do it all the time or not.

I fully believe PR firms do this ish all the time. But that’s why Lively sued! I don’t believe they’re allowed to retaliate here, so this letter is devastating to their case imho.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The really interesting unsealed doc is this one:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.605.1.pdf

It's the email after the one announcing the Scenario A / Scenario B, after they had a meeting to decide which one to pick, and explains that it's Scenario B but increased price to $30K and also some additional work is added in.

The additional work includes: "Leverage relationships with Discord. Reddit, X, IG, TikTok, You Tube, etc. to expose behavior of Blake and other parties. Both current and past, and engage directly with communities to adjust or influence the conversations taking place in real time." Also SEO and manipulation of google search results; takedown of problematic reddit accounts, "changing the narrative" all of which would leave "no fingerprints." Cost was $30K/month and Wallace was paid $30K two days later.

But Jed Wallace says he just monitored socials lol.

So basically your typical Hollywoood PR tactics, just different in name. Yawn.

Right, what is missing here and what needs to be made more clear is how these tactics are different or more importantly, illegal. Everyone knows comms crisis and PR in Hollywood is messy and dirty as hell. How is this different than any any other campaign more importantly, like I said, how is this illegal. How is this different than Blake’s campaign to try to take over the Barbie movie and smear and leak the people involved with that.

I’m just not seeing what’s illegal or what’s different about any of this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The really interesting unsealed doc is this one:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.605.1.pdf

It's the email after the one announcing the Scenario A / Scenario B, after they had a meeting to decide which one to pick, and explains that it's Scenario B but increased price to $30K and also some additional work is added in.

The additional work includes: "Leverage relationships with Discord. Reddit, X, IG, TikTok, You Tube, etc. to expose behavior of Blake and other parties. Both current and past, and engage directly with communities to adjust or influence the conversations taking place in real time." Also SEO and manipulation of google search results; takedown of problematic reddit accounts, "changing the narrative" all of which would leave "no fingerprints." Cost was $30K/month and Wallace was paid $30K two days later.

But Jed Wallace says he just monitored socials lol.

So basically your typical Hollywoood PR tactics, just different in name. Yawn.