Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

So tiresome.

- She quoted his "you smell good line" fairly accurately from her own memory and corrected her complaint when a video was produced showing the exact phrasing. Do you remember everything someone said to you 18 months ago with perfect accuracy? Not a lie.

- He did improvise kissing, it's just she did as well. We literally see him improvising nuzzling/kissing in the dancing scene. She clearly thought her improvised kissing was more professional and didn't cross a line. Different interpretation but not a lie.

- She never alleged she was shown porn on set. She alleged she was shown a video of a naked woman with legs played with no warning and thought it was porn. Which is what happened. She also says porn, including Justin's porn addiction, were discussed on set, which he has admitted. Not a lie.

- You can be amicable while disliking a person privately. There is no allegation that Lively was unkind or rude to Justin before shooting or when it started. The fact that she mentioned not really liking him to a close friend at the time actually demonstrates that she was capable of setting those feelings aside, because she continued to work amicably with him despite her misgivings. Have you never made a negative comment about a boss it colleague to a friend and then gone to work and gotten along fine? I've done this plenty of times. Not a lie.

- He absolutely claimed that the reason he needed to know her weight is that he had low bone density leading to his back issues. Not a lie (just an incredibly stupid thing Justin once said). Also I'm menopausal and this doesn't offend me in the least, but Justin asking her trainer for her weight does offend me.

- I think he is in a cult. I'm not talking about his religion, but Wayfarer. Multiple people on that set referenced the cult-like vibes around how they conducted business, not just Blake. I happen to agree. Anyway, that's an opinion, not a lie.

These are not good faith arguments. You are actually doing exactly what Blake does, taking things that seem like facts and twisting them way out of context. Saying that she didn’t remember about the you smell sooo good comment 18 months later doesn’t make sense. We as women know what that would feel like - very sleazy. We also know that if he simply said in a very different way that he was talking about her body makeup, it would be different.

If Blake improvised kissing several times and he did, then she was implicitly implying that these kinds of improvised scenes were. Just like the sex jokes Jenny Slate made, it was OK for them to do it, but then they turned it on Justin when he went along with it.

You should reread the New York Times article. Because she absolutely did allege that she had been shown porn on set. It was part of the “no more” list. No more showing Miss lively porn on set. So yes, the public believed she had been shown that and then later we found out it was a birth video, which, by the way, she wants sealed at this point because she knows what it’s going to look like if people see it.

The bone density was not the main reason that he couldn’t lift her. He had had back surgery and a long-standing back injury the trainer. Don was designing the whole program around his back injury. It wasn’t a secret. Maybe an injury causes bone loss, but they were trying to insult him by making him look like an old woman. He actually just had a back injury and was concerned about lifting her. It was sexist and offensive of Reynolds to say that.

You can say his religion a cult - it is just actually not. It is rude to go around accusing people of different faiths of being in a cult and you know this. Lively does too, and that’s why she had asked the court to seal any talk about his religion. The judge ruled against that and that’s how we know they were constantly walking around disparaging his religious beliefs.

Like I said, straight out of the lively playbook, but no one is buying it anymore. We all look at what lively said and realize this could be us or our husband or sons. Things that they’ve done twisted out of context and because of a giant Karen, they lose their job. This is why the public has turned, and this is why I’m so glad Justin decided to fight back and actually tell his side of the story instead of completely crumbling, like Reynolds and lively expected he would.

I'm not "twisting" facts out of context. I am interpreting the facts differently than you are. This is why you keep accusing her of lying when she just had a different take on these situation than you (or Justin) did. That doesn't make her take a lie, it means different people can see situations differently.

I watched the video in which the "you smell good" comment happened. I think Blake looks visibly uncomfortable in most of that video, she is pulling away from him and trying to create physical distance between their faces, and suggesting a different way to do the scene in order to reinforce that space. I read the script pages for the scene -- it didn't indicate any nuzzling or him kissing her neck or shoulders, so this behavior was improvised. And when he says "you smell good," it did come off as sleazy to me. I read that interaction as the two of them having a bit of a power struggle and him using their characters to blur the lines and exert control over her. It made me uncomfortable and I believe that Blake felt that his behavior in that scene crossed a line because it was just b-roll to be used in montage. Had he wanted to get a few shots of them being more affectionate, as the director he could have said "okay we have enough of the two of them dancing and talking, but I'd like a few of the characters getting closer like they are about to kiss, to show their chemistry. Blake, you comfortable with that? Should we block through it a bit?" That is what I think a professional director with strong boundaries would do in that situation.

I think the improvising Justin does in that scene is functionally different from the "improvising" we've seen of Blake in other scenes where she added kissing or touching. In those scenes, she is either just adding an extra kiss to one that is already there (kissing a few times instead of once) or she is talking to him in a professional way to discuss the blocking of intimacy (as in the scene where she is describing how she'd like him to pull her into him and demonstrates -- they are having a conversation explicitly about the intimacy in the scene, it is very clear that she is not pulling him in because she personally wants to be close to him, but to demonstrate how that movement would look on camera). What Justin does in the dance scene feels different to me.

A agree that Slate's comments about sex on set were inappropriate and I think a well run set would actually have checked her on that. I also think a lot of Ryan Reynold's comments in texts/emails to Justin are gross and unprofessional. I do not think Blake crosses those lines though. But the stuff Justin and Jamey said on set or in meetings or private moments with Blake are also unprofessional and inappropriate to me. It sounds like the entire production had these issues, and I do hold Justin and Jamey more responsible for that because they were the director and co-producers.

I haven't read the New York Times article in ages, but it doesn't matter because it's not a court filing. The point is that in her court filing, Blake makes it clear that she does not think Jamey showed her porn, nor does she allege that anyone else showed her porn on set. The complaint makes it clear that she objected to being shown a video featuring a nude woman without her consent (but with the hindsight understanding that it wasn't pornography). It's also clear from her complaint that a major issue with pornography on the set was that Justin on multiple occasions discussed his porn addiction, and also made inappropriate comments about Blake not having watched porn before, including to other members of the cast and crew. If the NYT article blurs these issues or conveys otherwise, that's on the NYT. It is common for media outlets to fail to capture the nuance of court filings, this is a perpetual issue I have with how legal cases are covered in mainstream media. But I don't hold litigants responsible for the poor coverage of their cases. There have been lots of inaccurate things written about Justin's case by the media as well, I don't blame Justin for their shoddy journalism.

Regarding the bone density thing, I read the deposition of the trainer and found it persuasive. One thing the trainer said that stuck with me is that the question about Lively's weight was non-sensical because Justin was obviously doing exercises that required him to lift more than Lively weighed already. So the idea that Justin asked due to his back didn't make sense in that context. The trainer said that if Justin had framed the question that way (that he was worried about the lift) instead of asking directly about Lively's weight, it wouldn't have been an issue. Justin was asking for very sensitive info about the trainer's client. It's completely inappropriate.

I also have a lot of skepticism about Justin's back because of other behavior related to his back. He has a history of either exaggerating issues with his back or blaming back issues on things that are not the cause. For instance, he blamed Colleen Hoover for his back issues in the summer of 2024 to try and make her feel guilty. But his own team even made fun of him for this because they all knew that the real reason he was having problems is that he'd gone to Mexico and gotten stem cell treatment from some hack doctor who caused an infection. He'd done it because the doctor gave him free treatment in exchange for promoting the doc on Justin's social media, and then later Justin deleted the promotional posts. Sorry if I'm not deeply offended on behalf of this person when other people made fun of him privately for having "low bone density." Justin is one of those people who uses illness or injury for attention and you are never even sure if it's real because they exaggerate and lie about it.

No one is calling Wayfarer a cult because of their religious beliefs. They are calling it a cult because of cult-like behavior like: forcing a lot of physical contact that not everyone feels comfortable with in professional settings, making a point of discussing religious beliefs in professional settings, hiring incompetent people to do jobs simply because they belong to your church, etc. Rainn Wilson is a member of the same faith, and I've never heard of him doing any of that stuff on the set of the Office, for instance. Perhaps because that was a diverse workplace and it would not have been appropriate to impose his views or religious norms on his coworkers in that way. That Wayfarer thought this was appropriate is, IMO, cult-like.

But I know you will consider all of this just me "twisting" things. I'm not twisting anyone. This is my perspective and opinion. It's every bit as valid as yours. And I know Justin fans hate to think about this, but it's just as likely that people on the jury will wind up thinking the way I do as that they will think the way you do. I would not underestimate the ability of people to take in someone like Justin, or hear about the behavior of Justin and Jamey and the others, and recognize it for what I think it is: culty, weird, and yes, retaliatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York mag / Vulture has a new long piece on this case. I haven’t read it yet, but here’s a link to an archive (paywall workaround)

https://archive.ph/pQDab

https://www.vulture.com/article/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-hollywood-feud-taylor-swift-ryan-reynolds.html

Thank you for the article and the gift link. This kind of got buried amid the discussion but it was a pretty good read. I liked that it started from when they met, not with the lawsuit, and it's pretty fair.

Reading this is so embarrassing for these people. All of them behave like petty mean middle school girls, including Blake, Taylor, Ryan, Matt Damon's wife Lucy, etc. Justin is annoying, but at least he seems like a decent human being.

And although there is some balance, this still feels like the writing tips towards being biased towards Blake. Ryan and Blake made a whole character openly mocking and humiliating Justin to the entire world, and they have the nerve to act offended that Justin inquired about her weight and other dumb misunderstandings. They are AWFUL people.

It’s now coming out that Blake told Sony to destroy the dailies. The Sony producer Ange texted or emailed a colleague that she had never seen anything like it in her career, remarking that dailies are usually only destroyed when there is nudity.

There’s also a text from Warren Z, Ryan’s agent, who he has since fired, and Ryan talking about destroying evidence around the AD Julie Blooms firing. Warren saying that Wayfarer probably has a paper trail showing it was Blake. Then he said he was hesitant to put any more in writing.

They were morons thinking none of this would come out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York mag / Vulture has a new long piece on this case. I haven’t read it yet, but here’s a link to an archive (paywall workaround)

https://archive.ph/pQDab

https://www.vulture.com/article/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-hollywood-feud-taylor-swift-ryan-reynolds.html

Thank you for the article and the gift link. This kind of got buried amid the discussion but it was a pretty good read. I liked that it started from when they met, not with the lawsuit, and it's pretty fair.

Reading this is so embarrassing for these people. All of them behave like petty mean middle school girls, including Blake, Taylor, Ryan, Matt Damon's wife Lucy, etc. Justin is annoying, but at least he seems like a decent human being.

And although there is some balance, this still feels like the writing tips towards being biased towards Blake. Ryan and Blake made a whole character openly mocking and humiliating Justin to the entire world, and they have the nerve to act offended that Justin inquired about her weight and other dumb misunderstandings. They are AWFUL people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York mag / Vulture has a new long piece on this case. I haven’t read it yet, but here’s a link to an archive (paywall workaround)

https://archive.ph/pQDab

https://www.vulture.com/article/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-hollywood-feud-taylor-swift-ryan-reynolds.html

Thank you for the article and the gift link. This kind of got buried amid the discussion but it was a pretty good read. I liked that it started from when they met, not with the lawsuit, and it's pretty fair.

Reading this is so embarrassing for these people. All of them behave like petty mean middle school girls, including Blake, Taylor, Ryan, Matt Damon's wife Lucy, etc. Justin is annoying, but at least he seems like a decent human being.

Anonymous wrote:The New York mag / Vulture has a new long piece on this case. I haven’t read it yet, but here’s a link to an archive (paywall workaround)

https://archive.ph/pQDab

https://www.vulture.com/article/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-hollywood-feud-taylor-swift-ryan-reynolds.html

Thank you for the article and the gift link. This kind of got buried amid the discussion but it was a pretty good read. I liked that it started from when they met, not with the lawsuit, and it's pretty fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

So tiresome.

- She quoted his "you smell good line" fairly accurately from her own memory and corrected her complaint when a video was produced showing the exact phrasing. Do you remember everything someone said to you 18 months ago with perfect accuracy? Not a lie.

- He did improvise kissing, it's just she did as well. We literally see him improvising nuzzling/kissing in the dancing scene. She clearly thought her improvised kissing was more professional and didn't cross a line. Different interpretation but not a lie.

- She never alleged she was shown porn on set. She alleged she was shown a video of a naked woman with legs played with no warning and thought it was porn. Which is what happened. She also says porn, including Justin's porn addiction, were discussed on set, which he has admitted. Not a lie.

- You can be amicable while disliking a person privately. There is no allegation that Lively was unkind or rude to Justin before shooting or when it started. The fact that she mentioned not really liking him to a close friend at the time actually demonstrates that she was capable of setting those feelings aside, because she continued to work amicably with him despite her misgivings. Have you never made a negative comment about a boss it colleague to a friend and then gone to work and gotten along fine? I've done this plenty of times. Not a lie.

- He absolutely claimed that the reason he needed to know her weight is that he had low bone density leading to his back issues. Not a lie (just an incredibly stupid thing Justin once said). Also I'm menopausal and this doesn't offend me in the least, but Justin asking her trainer for her weight does offend me.

- I think he is in a cult. I'm not talking about his religion, but Wayfarer. Multiple people on that set referenced the cult-like vibes around how they conducted business, not just Blake. I happen to agree. Anyway, that's an opinion, not a lie.

These are not good faith arguments. You are actually doing exactly what Blake does, taking things that seem like facts and twisting them way out of context. Saying that she didn’t remember about the you smell sooo good comment 18 months later doesn’t make sense. We as women know what that would feel like - very sleazy. We also know that if he simply said in a very different way that he was talking about her body makeup, it would be different.

If Blake improvised kissing several times and he did, then she was implicitly implying that these kinds of improvised scenes were. Just like the sex jokes Jenny Slate made, it was OK for them to do it, but then they turned it on Justin when he went along with it.

You should reread the New York Times article. Because she absolutely did allege that she had been shown porn on set. It was part of the “no more” list. No more showing Miss lively porn on set. So yes, the public believed she had been shown that and then later we found out it was a birth video, which, by the way, she wants sealed at this point because she knows what it’s going to look like if people see it.

The bone density was not the main reason that he couldn’t lift her. He had had back surgery and a long-standing back injury the trainer. Don was designing the whole program around his back injury. It wasn’t a secret. Maybe an injury causes bone loss, but they were trying to insult him by making him look like an old woman. He actually just had a back injury and was concerned about lifting her. It was sexist and offensive of Reynolds to say that.

You can say his religion a cult - it is just actually not. It is rude to go around accusing people of different faiths of being in a cult and you know this. Lively does too, and that’s why she had asked the court to seal any talk about his religion. The judge ruled against that and that’s how we know they were constantly walking around disparaging his religious beliefs.

Like I said, straight out of the lively playbook, but no one is buying it anymore. We all look at what lively said and realize this could be us or our husband or sons. Things that they’ve done twisted out of context and because of a giant Karen, they lose their job. This is why the public has turned, and this is why I’m so glad Justin decided to fight back and actually tell his side of the story instead of completely crumbling, like Reynolds and lively expected he would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

The woman who did the baby bump interview came out right away and says she re posted on her own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

And yet that, which is more recent and involving a much bigger celebrity than Flaa, didn't make much of a dent. I'd certainly never heard about it but I did hear about the little bump video even though I don't generally follow celebrity news. To me that screams inorganic, especially if there are texts where they flag that for Jed and the big spike in views occurs immediately thereafter. I don't know if that's going to be enough causation for the jury. It's complicated by the fact that all the stuff they were "boosting" appears to have been truthful material, so at that point is the negative sentiment because the behavior was bad or because it was boosted, and to what extent did the boosting cause damages, etc. It's hard to quantify so it will be hard for her to get damages, but for me this example actually reinforces that this stuff was pumped out by Wayfarer around the premiere.

Actually Kate gate was just weeks before the iewum premiere. What makes you think it didn’t make a dent? Common sense would suggest there was a cumulative effect. If you’re Kroger, you’re now dealing with two lively scandals in a matter of weeks revolving around a new brand that’s not established and relationships that are not established. No wonder they pumped the brakes.

Nope, it was months prior. I remember this because I had surgery shortly after the photoshopped photo was posted but before anyone knew what was going on and I remember joking with my friend so make sure to text me if there was an update on "Kate-gate" while I was under anesthesia so that I could find out as soon as I woke up. It was March 2024, months before IEWU premiered in early-mid August.

You are really splitting hairs here. Kate Middleton came out with her diagnosis on March 22 and lively apologized soon after. Lively’s reputation started tanking in late July and early August - the reports in the docket show the marketing in late July leading up to the premiere was not going well.

Whether it’s one month, two months, three months or four, that is a really short time to have a scandal after scandal pile up. of course brands like Kroger and other others were concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

So tiresome.

- She quoted his "you smell good line" fairly accurately from her own memory and corrected her complaint when a video was produced showing the exact phrasing. Do you remember everything someone said to you 18 months ago with perfect accuracy? Not a lie.

- He did improvise kissing, it's just she did as well. We literally see him improvising nuzzling/kissing in the dancing scene. She clearly thought her improvised kissing was more professional and didn't cross a line. Different interpretation but not a lie.

- She never alleged she was shown porn on set. She alleged she was shown a video of a naked woman with legs played with no warning and thought it was porn. Which is what happened. She also says porn, including Justin's porn addiction, were discussed on set, which he has admitted. Not a lie.

- You can be amicable while disliking a person privately. There is no allegation that Lively was unkind or rude to Justin before shooting or when it started. The fact that she mentioned not really liking him to a close friend at the time actually demonstrates that she was capable of setting those feelings aside, because she continued to work amicably with him despite her misgivings. Have you never made a negative comment about a boss it colleague to a friend and then gone to work and gotten along fine? I've done this plenty of times. Not a lie.

- He absolutely claimed that the reason he needed to know her weight is that he had low bone density leading to his back issues. Not a lie (just an incredibly stupid thing Justin once said). Also I'm menopausal and this doesn't offend me in the least, but Justin asking her trainer for her weight does offend me.

- I think he is in a cult. I'm not talking about his religion, but Wayfarer. Multiple people on that set referenced the cult-like vibes around how they conducted business, not just Blake. I happen to agree. Anyway, that's an opinion, not a lie.

TLDR but it’s over for Blake. It was actually over a long time ago but she’s insisted on letting this drag out.

They are moving to London - it’s over.

Of course you won't read it, you ignore anything that doesn't confirm your existing view.

Unfortunately the jury will be required to listen to the evidence, not just bathe in Reddit drivel. Darn.

DP. I read your long drivel and PP didn't miss anything by skipping. Do whatever mental gymnastics you need to reach your "not a lie" ridiculousness but don't expect to convince anyone else. As you stated, the jury will be required to listen to the evidence, not just bathe in your made-up fantasy of how Lively was never ever problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

If there are actual Jed Wallace "monitoring" reports on the docket why haven't they been unsealed? Hard to see what the privacy concern or trade secret would be of reports just monitoring how the movie or Wayfarer or Baldoni were being covered in the press or discussed online. And I don't recall any discussion of Wallace claiming privacy or trade secrets to keep these "reports" sealed, like we've seen with his client lists.

I have not gone through every docket entry on this case but it seems odd we have yet to see a single one of these so called monitoring reports publicly. If they produced them, that would be a pretty convincing defense. So..... Where are they? The trial is in like two weeks.

.

I’ve read a letter from Jed detailing activity around Justin and wayfarer in fall of 2024. I assume that was an example of a report. I assume that was official business he was being paid for and not something he did for kicks.

That's a short email, not a report. A report would have actual data, charts, tracking figures, etc. Also that's ONE email. They paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the work product? This is a major issue for their defense, especially because if there is no written evidence of substantial work product, they need Wallace to testify to what he did and that guy is not going to play well in front of a jury. They have a similar problem with Nathan, especially because both Nathan and Wallace need to testify to rebut Katie Case (where they will be criss examined with the evidence they lied under oath in their depositions, as shown by Case's depo and emails).

I believe he is slated to testify by depo. He's out of the court's range to subpoena. So it will be all his "I have no idea what I meant by that" stuff and he'll skate by, I guess. His depo isn't good but his testimony would be way worse in person so that's somewhat of an advantage to WF.

I don't know if you can call that an advantage so much as them possibly mitigating a big negative. And only possibly. Using his depo in lieu of live testimony could be risky depending on how testimony of people who interacted with Wallace goes. Things could come up that it would be helpful to have Wallace clarify or explain, and leaving them dangling out there could be a big issue with the jury.

I've served on juries before and the "unanswered question" problem has come up. I served on a criminal jury once that hung because the prosecution never addressed this weird thing their key witness said to a police officer right after the crime occurred, and it raised enough questions for some jurors to be unable to convict even though I think most of us were ready to otherwise. Civil juries don't have to be unanimous, but if you leave stuff dangling like that on your side, it could be enough to sway one or two jurors against you, which could be all it takes.

Wayfarer's defense is far from airtight, just as Lively's case is not a sure thing at all. I would bet both sides are sweating bullets right now, kind of crazy I still don't think it will settle because so much could go wrong for both of them at this trial.

I don’t see how this ends well for Blake. You are leaving out that it’s not both sides anymore. It is now a company and Blake. Justin and all of the individual defendants are out of it so I bet they’re sleeping well and not sweating at all. I’m not sure billionaire Steve is that concerned.

In a best case scenario for Blake she gets awarded millions in damages from a billionaire who won’t miss it. Great? I’m sure the public will sleep better knowing that Blake and Ryan are now worth 400 million vs 350 million!!!! Justice is served! She will be at court in ridiculously expensive clothing and purses and no one will buy that she did this for other women. It’s all such a waste. It won’t convince studios to hire her and it won’t get her seen with Taylor. She will forever have wasted tens of millions on lawyers and crisis management as there is no way her damages will be bigger than those fees, and she will be known as the actress who falsely accused someone of SH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

If there are actual Jed Wallace "monitoring" reports on the docket why haven't they been unsealed? Hard to see what the privacy concern or trade secret would be of reports just monitoring how the movie or Wayfarer or Baldoni were being covered in the press or discussed online. And I don't recall any discussion of Wallace claiming privacy or trade secrets to keep these "reports" sealed, like we've seen with his client lists.

I have not gone through every docket entry on this case but it seems odd we have yet to see a single one of these so called monitoring reports publicly. If they produced them, that would be a pretty convincing defense. So..... Where are they? The trial is in like two weeks.

.

I’ve read a letter from Jed detailing activity around Justin and wayfarer in fall of 2024. I assume that was an example of a report. I assume that was official business he was being paid for and not something he did for kicks.

That's a short email, not a report. A report would have actual data, charts, tracking figures, etc. Also that's ONE email. They paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the work product? This is a major issue for their defense, especially because if there is no written evidence of substantial work product, they need Wallace to testify to what he did and that guy is not going to play well in front of a jury. They have a similar problem with Nathan, especially because both Nathan and Wallace need to testify to rebut Katie Case (where they will be criss examined with the evidence they lied under oath in their depositions, as shown by Case's depo and emails).

I believe he is slated to testify by depo. He's out of the court's range to subpoena. So it will be all his "I have no idea what I meant by that" stuff and he'll skate by, I guess. His depo isn't good but his testimony would be way worse in person so that's somewhat of an advantage to WF.

I don't know if you can call that an advantage so much as them possibly mitigating a big negative. And only possibly. Using his depo in lieu of live testimony could be risky depending on how testimony of people who interacted with Wallace goes. Things could come up that it would be helpful to have Wallace clarify or explain, and leaving them dangling out there could be a big issue with the jury.

I've served on juries before and the "unanswered question" problem has come up. I served on a criminal jury once that hung because the prosecution never addressed this weird thing their key witness said to a police officer right after the crime occurred, and it raised enough questions for some jurors to be unable to convict even though I think most of us were ready to otherwise. Civil juries don't have to be unanimous, but if you leave stuff dangling like that on your side, it could be enough to sway one or two jurors against you, which could be all it takes.

Wayfarer's defense is far from airtight, just as Lively's case is not a sure thing at all. I would bet both sides are sweating bullets right now, kind of crazy I still don't think it will settle because so much could go wrong for both of them at this trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

And yet that, which is more recent and involving a much bigger celebrity than Flaa, didn't make much of a dent. I'd certainly never heard about it but I did hear about the little bump video even though I don't generally follow celebrity news. To me that screams inorganic, especially if there are texts where they flag that for Jed and the big spike in views occurs immediately thereafter. I don't know if that's going to be enough causation for the jury. It's complicated by the fact that all the stuff they were "boosting" appears to have been truthful material, so at that point is the negative sentiment because the behavior was bad or because it was boosted, and to what extent did the boosting cause damages, etc. It's hard to quantify so it will be hard for her to get damages, but for me this example actually reinforces that this stuff was pumped out by Wayfarer around the premiere.

Actually Kate gate was just weeks before the iewum premiere. What makes you think it didn’t make a dent? Common sense would suggest there was a cumulative effect. If you’re Kroger, you’re now dealing with two lively scandals in a matter of weeks revolving around a new brand that’s not established and relationships that are not established. No wonder they pumped the brakes.

Nope, it was months prior. I remember this because I had surgery shortly after the photoshopped photo was posted but before anyone knew what was going on and I remember joking with my friend so make sure to text me if there was an update on "Kate-gate" while I was under anesthesia so that I could find out as soon as I woke up. It was March 2024, months before IEWU premiered in early-mid August.

Anonymous wrote:

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

And yet that, which is more recent and involving a much bigger celebrity than Flaa, didn't make much of a dent. I'd certainly never heard about it but I did hear about the little bump video even though I don't generally follow celebrity news. To me that screams inorganic, especially if there are texts where they flag that for Jed and the big spike in views occurs immediately thereafter. I don't know if that's going to be enough causation for the jury. It's complicated by the fact that all the stuff they were "boosting" appears to have been truthful material, so at that point is the negative sentiment because the behavior was bad or because it was boosted, and to what extent did the boosting cause damages, etc. It's hard to quantify so it will be hard for her to get damages, but for me this example actually reinforces that this stuff was pumped out by Wayfarer around the premiere.

Actually Kate gate was just weeks before the iewum premiere. What makes you think it didn’t make a dent? Common sense would suggest there was a cumulative effect. If you’re Kroger, you’re now dealing with two lively scandals in a matter of weeks revolving around a new brand that’s not established and relationships that are not established. No wonder they pumped the brakes.

I don’t know if there was a smear campaign. But they don’t seem to have evidence. I understand they are relying on “experts” to testify but there are verified reports that her reputation plummeted while his popularity skyrocketed in early August. And yet the date of the smear campaign that is her team ha on the record is August 10 - so there was a lot of things happening prior to that that will be hard to explain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

If there are actual Jed Wallace "monitoring" reports on the docket why haven't they been unsealed? Hard to see what the privacy concern or trade secret would be of reports just monitoring how the movie or Wayfarer or Baldoni were being covered in the press or discussed online. And I don't recall any discussion of Wallace claiming privacy or trade secrets to keep these "reports" sealed, like we've seen with his client lists.

I have not gone through every docket entry on this case but it seems odd we have yet to see a single one of these so called monitoring reports publicly. If they produced them, that would be a pretty convincing defense. So..... Where are they? The trial is in like two weeks.

.

I’ve read a letter from Jed detailing activity around Justin and wayfarer in fall of 2024. I assume that was an example of a report. I assume that was official business he was being paid for and not something he did for kicks.

That's a short email, not a report. A report would have actual data, charts, tracking figures, etc. Also that's ONE email. They paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the work product? This is a major issue for their defense, especially because if there is no written evidence of substantial work product, they need Wallace to testify to what he did and that guy is not going to play well in front of a jury. They have a similar problem with Nathan, especially because both Nathan and Wallace need to testify to rebut Katie Case (where they will be criss examined with the evidence they lied under oath in their depositions, as shown by Case's depo and emails).

I believe he is slated to testify by depo. He's out of the court's range to subpoena. So it will be all his "I have no idea what I meant by that" stuff and he'll skate by, I guess. His depo isn't good but his testimony would be way worse in person so that's somewhat of an advantage to WF.