Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Reynolds delete all of his instagram posts or just the ones with Lively?

Just the lively ones. Past bday and Mother’s Day, a voting one they did together near Election Day, some of the ones for the Deadpool premier, I recall they had some of them together from some other Wrexham games….he seemed to just try to clear most of the ones with her in it I think.

I personally don’t get it as it draws a lot of attention and of course gets reported on, but they are the marketing geniuses so what do I know?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Are Ryan’s and Blake getting divorced?

Probably not any time soon. Would look bad for both of them. But dumb of him to scrub all of the past Blake posts. There is speculation that he’s just trying to distract from the Robert Downey Jr. press. His whole brand is nice, funny guy, and when a huge star is beefing with him, it pokes holes in that.

what did he do to Robert? Or Robert do to him? I know dead pool is insanely popular but iron man is the sun in marvel.

Anonymous wrote:Did Reynolds delete all of his instagram posts or just the ones with Lively?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Are Ryan’s and Blake getting divorced?

Probably not any time soon. Would look bad for both of them. But dumb of him to scrub all of the past Blake posts. There is speculation that he’s just trying to distract from the Robert Downey Jr. press. His whole brand is nice, funny guy, and when a huge star is beefing with him, it pokes holes in that.

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Are Ryan’s and Blake getting divorced?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor knows Blake’s lying and wants nothing to do with it. Sorry Blake fans.

Hmmm what is the psychology of Blake here? Why would she risk her BFF status with Taylor over a movie? Or did she not think through the possible consequences?

Blake was getting increasingly desperate.

She had not anticipated that Justin Baldoni would fight back and release his website about the case. The full context of Blake’s texts were exposed and they did not paint Taylor Swift in a flattering light. Blake basically told Justin that she could use Taylor to destroy him. Blake compared herself to Khaleese and Taylor as her dragon that she could manipulate.

While, the information on the website probably gave Taylor pause, I don’t think it would have been enough to end the relationship so definitively.

The final straw was Blake threatening Taylor. Blake was facing a big backlash and she wanted to be seen publicly with Taylor at the Superbowl to improve public perception. Taylor said no, and Blake threatened to release their texts unless she acquiesced. That was the turning point when Taylor began communicating with Blake through her lawyers. Photos of Blake and Taylor were scrubbed from Taylor’s instagram and Kelce publicly unfollowed Blake’s husband.

I generally agree with this. Swift has every right to be angry that her name was used in that way and that Lively and her lawyers threatened her (if that's true). I don't think a) Swift being angry at Lively means Swift doesn't believe Lively's allegations and b) that it matters at all whether she believes Lively. It's on Lively to prove those allegations, Swift wasn't on set and has no knowledge whether Baldoni and Heath SHed Lively and certainly no knowledge of whatever TAG and Wallace did (if they did anything).

And I just really doubt Swift would sit around reading Baldoni's website with his legal complaint. I guess she has people who monitor such things and report the gist? I imagine the online chatter about how it was received would be more important to Swift than the actual lawsuit info.

Come on, if she believed her friend was SH and retaliated against she would not be acting this way. Taylor is the queen of girls girls, whether it’s true or a perception, that’s how she is known so it definitely stands out that she has been silent from the beginning.

The shutting out of Blake happened well before the Superbowl. It’s just pretty clear Taylor doesn’t either buy it or thinks that Blake had enough problematic behavior on set and with Justin that this was going to get messy. She wanted to stay out of it from the beginning for a reason.

No one is saying Taylor sat and read the website. But you don’t think her name being in the website is going to get back to her instantly? Of course she has people monitoring this kind of thing and of course they told her. And of course she’d be pissed about it. She probably knows her friends and Blake use her for clout on occasion but to see it laid out so directly, actually implying that Taylor would be a threat if JB didn’t comply with Blake, is a whole other level.

PP - Yeah, what I'm saying is I agree she has people who monitor and report back on stuff like mentions of her name in the suit, or just generally "the internet is trending against Blake/for Baldoni." But I don't think it gets to the level of detail of "oh, Baldoni has all these texts contradicting X, Y, and Z from her complaint that rebut her harassment allegations." So I don't think her attitude is a reflection on whether she believes Lively or knows anything about how Lively acted on set.

You are delusional. No one, even Taylor Swift, has no opinion on a close friend who is alleging sexual harassment in a major case.

Sexual harassment isn’t exactly rare. What woman alive hasn’t been sexually harassed? It’s not that much of a stretch to believe it happened and the smear campaign seems obvious.

So you are saying when Taylor found out she was SH she said well it’s happened to everyone so I’m not going to support you? That makes no sense.

SH is extremely common but not for women who have extreme power and are married to one of the most powerful men in the industry, from a newish director who has significantly less power than you.

And what woman who is SH deals with it by going full on mean girl, turning the cast against you, taking over the movie and banning you from the poster and premiere. Taylor saw through this.

Please. Baldoni knows what he did and wanted to come out ahead of it to acknowledge his different brain. That wouldn’t take into account who someone was married to, he has poor social skills no matter who he talks to.

This is word salad. But no matter, Blake has lost the public.

The public largely has moved on and could not care less. This is a fringe issue for a few obsessives.

Lol okay. No one believes for one second her team saw this coming. They miscalculated and it’s too late to turn back. It’s even affecting Ryan now and I thought he was teflon.

Nobody cares. It’s obvious Blake is going to win, and people will care even less than they do now in a year or whenever this finally goes to trial. People have short attention spans and enough time has been spent on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

Pretty sure we know he was included on some Signal communications, so that means he deleted everything.

Signal has a “disappear” function that causes messages to self delete (on all devices) after a certain amount of time. Do Blake’s attorneys not know how it works? They aren’t getting anything useful from discovery on Signal, if it ever existed.

Their argument was he should have turned that feature off because he should have known he was going to be sued. Maybe it will work with Liman but its generally not a great argument for Wallace prior to the CRD being filed, I think he had a reasonable argument he didn't expect to be sued at that point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

Pretty sure we know he was included on some Signal communications, so that means he deleted everything.

Signal has a “disappear” function that causes messages to self delete (on all devices) after a certain amount of time. Do Blake’s attorneys not know how it works? They aren’t getting anything useful from discovery on Signal, if it ever existed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From yesterday, WF responded to Jones’ surreply (filed without leave of the Court) on attorney) fees. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.705.0.pdf

Many solid legal arguments here, but perhaps most noteworthy to this thread, the text excerpt at least one Blake supporter here was claiming to be new and a game changer wasn’t new at all and was in fact cited by Jones in her previous filings.

Wow, she spent three pages going off about the “new” text. Oh well.

Lol, your side kept saying "we don't understand, can you explain again?" and then "OMG, she went on and on for pages!"

Because she was wrong. But she’ll never admit it. But the text was old and already in the possession of Lively and Jones.

The new information is the date that Freedman received it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace’s response to the Motion To Compel with respect to him. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/707/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/
He attests to not having any Signal communications related to Lively.

It's nice for Wallace that he both has a brain and good counsel, unlike the Wayfarer parties. Lively can argue til she's blue in the face that he maybe should have thought he might get sued, but he wisely used an app that auto deleted while there were no claims pending against him. If it's not there then it's not there. I am intrigued how he mentioned his "team" and used the plural form multiple times in reference to his experts but swears up and down he never hired or paid anyone. He's either telling the truth or very sure of his methods. I think Liman will rule against him again on the client list, which I disagree with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From yesterday, WF responded to Jones’ surreply (filed without leave of the Court) on attorney) fees. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.705.0.pdf

Many solid legal arguments here, but perhaps most noteworthy to this thread, the text excerpt at least one Blake supporter here was claiming to be new and a game changer wasn’t new at all and was in fact cited by Jones in her previous filings.

Wow, she spent three pages going off about the “new” text. Oh well.

Lol, your side kept saying "we don't understand, can you explain again?" and then "OMG, she went on and on for pages!"

Because she was wrong. But she’ll never admit it. But the text was old and already in the possession of Lively and Jones.