Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a different person who supports Lively generally (haven't posted here in several days) and I don't think the declarant is Lively, Reynolds, or Johannsen. Lively and Reynolds are stupid suggestions. Johannsen is too much star power to be doing a declaration like this, but in any case their name doesn't fit in he blank that's left for it. (And don't try to say she'd sign as Scarlett Jost: no.) My guess is a lower level producer etc. from Johannsen's movie. Or maybe someone from Will and Harper although the timing is off. I've kind of wondered whether it might be Harper, because I feel like it would be pretty easy for Baldoni to say something incredibly insensitive and wrong to Harper.

This makes sense.

Regardless of who it is, it's a very bad look for Baldoni that he has this type of conflict with another person, as it does give more credence to Blake's claims and makes it less likely that she is entirely to blame for their poor working relationship.

Also, depending on the timing of this other issue, I could see it contributing to Baldoni behaving poorly with Blake. If he'd recently has a conflict with another person, especially another woman, on another project, it could have put him in mindset that made it harder for him to work with.

Though I am also totally baffled as to why Steve Sarowitz would choose to make that threatening comment about Blake and Ryan to someone who has already had issues with Baldoni? That's bizarre.

So is someone filing that JB also SH them? If just saying he was mean, that’s just a jerk boss but doesn’t rise to SH claim.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a different person who supports Lively generally (haven't posted here in several days) and I don't think the declarant is Lively, Reynolds, or Johannsen. Lively and Reynolds are stupid suggestions. Johannsen is too much star power to be doing a declaration like this, but in any case their name doesn't fit in he blank that's left for it. (And don't try to say she'd sign as Scarlett Jost: no.) My guess is a lower level producer etc. from Johannsen's movie. Or maybe someone from Will and Harper although the timing is off. I've kind of wondered whether it might be Harper, because I feel like it would be pretty easy for Baldoni to say something incredibly insensitive and wrong to Harper.

This makes sense.

Regardless of who it is, it's a very bad look for Baldoni that he has this type of conflict with another person, as it does give more credence to Blake's claims and makes it less likely that she is entirely to blame for their poor working relationship.

Also, depending on the timing of this other issue, I could see it contributing to Baldoni behaving poorly with Blake. If he'd recently has a conflict with another person, especially another woman, on another project, it could have put him in mindset that made it harder for him to work with.

Though I am also totally baffled as to why Steve Sarowitz would choose to make that threatening comment about Blake and Ryan to someone who has already had issues with Baldoni? That's bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We definitely have a Blake pr bot trying to hype up all her recent filings.

Alternatively someone disagrees with you and rather than just accept that you will accuse them of being a bot.

Someone trying to say that it’s Scarlett Johansson loses all credibility, sorry, but that is not a difference of opinion that is just delusional wishful thinking. I’m not seeing that anywhere except on DCUM.

It’s a dumb idea, and people are calling it out. It also reeks of desperation, which is why people are thinking it could be a Blake bot.

I'm a different person who supports Lively generally (haven't posted here in several days) and I don't think the declarant is Lively, Reynolds, or Johannsen. Lively and Reynolds are stupid suggestions. Johannsen is too much star power to be doing a declaration like this, but in any case their name doesn't fit in he blank that's left for it. (And don't try to say she'd sign as Scarlett Jost: no.) My guess is a lower level producer etc. from Johannsen's movie. Or maybe someone from Will and Harper although the timing is off. I've kind of wondered whether it might be Harper, because I feel like it would be pretty easy for Baldoni to say something incredibly insensitive and wrong to Harper.

Anonymous wrote:We definitely have a Blake pr bot trying to hype up all her recent filings.

Alternatively someone disagrees with you and rather than just accept that you will accuse them of being a bot.

We definitely have a Blake pr bot trying to hype up all her recent filings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?

Here is the declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.744.0.pdf

You should read it before weighing in because the person is quite clearly high level (enough sway to get Baldoni banned from set, and important enough that Steve Sarowitz requested a 1:1 meeting with them). Also Sony wasn't involved and is not mentioned, there is no allegation Baldoni grabbed anyone's ass (the allegation is that he was verbally abusive and had multiple negative interactions with the person and others on the set).

I'm not saying it's Scarlett but maybe before you go around saying "Are we kidding right now?" and "are you listening to yourself?" you should actually read the document in question and get some of the BASIC facts correct.

DP. I would advise not reading anything between the lines other than what is written. For example, it does not say Baldoni was banned from that set. There are redacted words before "Mr. Baldoni not be permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences" which is written in subjunctive mood. It could very well be that someone asked, suggested, or requested that Baldoni not be permitted on set, but that this request was not granted. The same goes for declarant's request that he be banned from the marketing and PR.

I don't like Baldoni and will be amused if this is all true, but right now this looks like mad libs and could be all hype like the letter Hudson wrote implying that dozens of content creators were on TAG's list but it was really just Popcorned Planet. Not clear who marked this information confidential and can unseal it. If this person is going to testify their identity is going to be revealed, so what is this theater? I'm skeptical.

Yup, me too. Zero reason for redaction.

I could see a reason for redaction in order to minimize the media furor over this person prior to them testifying. They'd be opening themselves up to a ton of online hate the minute they were identified, but as a potential witness they'd have limited ability to defend themselves publicly. Whereas if their identity is revealed closer to the time of their testimony (or, for instance, at the same time as their deposition is released), they could provide the context and explanation in their testimony that might help them whether the media storm a bit better than if it came out now.

They signed a declaration attached to a publicly field document. They shouldn’t have anonymity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?

Even if RR’s ex was on best of terms with him and BL, no A-list stars is voluntarily agreeing to be a part of this mess of a lawsuit. And if they showed any sign they wanted to, their entire team of agents and managers stop them.

The PP has the facts wrong. I think they were looking at info regarding Jenny Slate's complaint on the set of IEWU, which did involve Sony. The recent declaration is from a 3rd party who worked on another Wayfarer production. Could be any of a number of people, including Scarlett, as insane as that may sound (there's only like 5-10 people it could be and it would be disingenuous not to include her as one of them).

Enough. It's not Scarlett.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?

Even if RR’s ex was on best of terms with him and BL, no A-list stars is voluntarily agreeing to be a part of this mess of a lawsuit. And if they showed any sign they wanted to, their entire team of agents and managers stop them.

The PP has the facts wrong. I think they were looking at info regarding Jenny Slate's complaint on the set of IEWU, which did involve Sony. The recent declaration is from a 3rd party who worked on another Wayfarer production. Could be any of a number of people, including Scarlett, as insane as that may sound (there's only like 5-10 people it could be and it would be disingenuous not to include her as one of them).

Anonymous wrote:While anticipate if goes to court will be as or more interesting to watch than Depp/Heard case, but if it were to settle prior- which in most all other cases is what would expect to see- what do you think the settlement would be for? I can’t see JB willing to pay any $ amount bc even if make settlement confidential or even if settle for zero $, assume “source close to BL” would quickly leak that he settled, which means he lost and so proves his wrongdoing etc. I can’t think of scenario where at this point JB would be willing to settle and presume BL will only settle if JB agrees to put out statement written by RR. Is there a settlement that works after all this?

Well then it's going to trial because it's also highly unlikely Lively would settle without Justin/Wayfarer paying. I mean they just filed this motion for attorneys fees for Justin's suit against her that was dismissed.

Yes most cases settle but it's very hard for me to imagine this one settling unless something comes out that is so bad or definitive for one side or the other that it makes settlement more appealing than dragging it out. No idea what that would be though at this point. The case has already been very damaging to both their reps.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?

Even if RR’s ex was on best of terms with him and BL, no A-list stars is voluntarily agreeing to be a part of this mess of a lawsuit. And if they showed any sign they wanted to, their entire team of agents and managers stop them.

While anticipate if goes to court will be as or more interesting to watch than Depp/Heard case, but if it were to settle prior- which in most all other cases is what would expect to see- what do you think the settlement would be for? I can’t see JB willing to pay any $ amount bc even if make settlement confidential or even if settle for zero $, assume “source close to BL” would quickly leak that he settled, which means he lost and so proves his wrongdoing etc. I can’t think of scenario where at this point JB would be willing to settle and presume BL will only settle if JB agrees to put out statement written by RR. Is there a settlement that works after all this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?

Here is the declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.744.0.pdf

You should read it before weighing in because the person is quite clearly high level (enough sway to get Baldoni banned from set, and important enough that Steve Sarowitz requested a 1:1 meeting with them). Also Sony wasn't involved and is not mentioned, there is no allegation Baldoni grabbed anyone's ass (the allegation is that he was verbally abusive and had multiple negative interactions with the person and others on the set).

I'm not saying it's Scarlett but maybe before you go around saying "Are we kidding right now?" and "are you listening to yourself?" you should actually read the document in question and get some of the BASIC facts correct.

DP. I would advise not reading anything between the lines other than what is written. For example, it does not say Baldoni was banned from that set. There are redacted words before "Mr. Baldoni not be permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences" which is written in subjunctive mood. It could very well be that someone asked, suggested, or requested that Baldoni not be permitted on set, but that this request was not granted. The same goes for declarant's request that he be banned from the marketing and PR.

I don't like Baldoni and will be amused if this is all true, but right now this looks like mad libs and could be all hype like the letter Hudson wrote implying that dozens of content creators were on TAG's list but it was really just Popcorned Planet. Not clear who marked this information confidential and can unseal it. If this person is going to testify their identity is going to be revealed, so what is this theater? I'm skeptical.

Yup, me too. Zero reason for redaction.

I could see a reason for redaction in order to minimize the media furor over this person prior to them testifying. They'd be opening themselves up to a ton of online hate the minute they were identified, but as a potential witness they'd have limited ability to defend themselves publicly. Whereas if their identity is revealed closer to the time of their testimony (or, for instance, at the same time as their deposition is released), they could provide the context and explanation in their testimony that might help them whether the media storm a bit better than if it came out now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the deluded Blake poster is accusing Vanity Fair of putting incorrect information out there and not fact checking?

They are a pretty reputable magazine. This would be a pretty big mistake. I would think if Scarlett’s people were preparing legal action against Baldoni they would have a real problem with Vanity Fair, putting in the article that she had never met him. They would probably want that taken out.

I can’t even believe we’re having this conversation. Can someone point me to speculation that it’s Scarlet beyond DCUM and this one delusional poster?

No one is coming to save Blake. Not Taylor, not Scarlet. She’s dug her own hole.

I think it's weird you think Blake needs saving when Baldoni is losing this case.

You’re the one trying to hype this declaration ( and probably the same poster who posted endlessly about the JV declaration which turned out to be a nothing burger). In any case, Blake is losing horribly on the pr front, no one in the general public gives two shits about the MTD. Meaningful for the parties but no one else.

I'm not trying to "hype" the declaration. I think it's interesting. It's a person swearing under oath that they were verbally harassed by Baldoni, on the set of another Wayfarer production, to the point that they asked him to not be involved in the production anymore. And this same person is apparently the one to whom Sarowitz said that alleged comment about destroying Blake and Ryan like Israel destroys Hamas.

One reason I'm interested to find out who this is is that these are huge allegations and I want to decide if I believe them. Maybe they are BS. Maybe they are legit. Hard to know when the declaration is redacted and it's currently anonymous. Thus, yeah, I'm speculating on who it might be because this is a message board where people discuss and speculate about this case.

I think it's weird you are NOT curious about the identity of this person and the allegations they are making here.

As with everything Blake, I think this will be underwhelming when revealed. It’s like she forgets that everything she files will be fact checked.

Let’s put you down for ScarJo and then reevaluate your powers of prognostication that you are always crowing about.

For what it’s worth, NAG thinks the declarant is Blake herself.

The idea that it's Blake makes no sense because in addition to this person being on set with Baldoni, they also say they had a 1:1 meeting with Sarowitz where he made the Hamas comment, and in other legal filings it is said that this comment was made to a "third party."

So it cannot be Blake. I know people think she'll lie about anything, but her lawyers would not put such an obvious inconsistency/lie within the pleadings themselves, for their own protection. Blake cannot be a "third party" in this case.

I've also seen the argument it could be Ryan, but the filing say that this person was "working with Wayfarer on an unrelated project," and I don't think there is any way to twist that to be Ryan (or, for that matter, Blake). I also don't think Ryan would agree to a 1:1 meeting with Sarowitz.

So while I get the desire for this to be Blake or Ryan, it seems clear that it can't be either of them. It's a genuine 3rd party who worked with Wayfarer/Baldoni on another project. And by the way the declaration is phrased, I don't think it can be Liz Plank because her work with Wayfarer was on an ongoing podcast, which is inconsistent with the phrase "the majority of the production." This indicates it was a discrete project (like a film) with a set, and a starting and ending point of production.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if I read the actual declaration because I just googled quickly and found something on Reddit so I could be wrong, but whoever made the accusation sounded pretty low level.

It sounded like they were getting the runaround and were saying I need to speak to someone from Sony. I really don’t picture Scarlett Johansson at this level in her career having this kind of interaction. Wasn’t she the director of the film? And given that Sony was just the distributor Scarlet would know they have no say on this film. This sounds like someone low level and not exactly sure what to do on a film set.

Scarlett would have a team of people swarming on this. And I really find it a little hard to fathom that Justin has had no complaints to this point of his career and yet he decides to blatantly sexually harass Blake lively and grab Scarlett Johansson’s ass?

Are we kidding right now? Seriously whoever is trying to make Scarlett Johansson as an accuser happen, are you listening to yourself?

Here is the declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.744.0.pdf

You should read it before weighing in because the person is quite clearly high level (enough sway to get Baldoni banned from set, and important enough that Steve Sarowitz requested a 1:1 meeting with them). Also Sony wasn't involved and is not mentioned, there is no allegation Baldoni grabbed anyone's ass (the allegation is that he was verbally abusive and had multiple negative interactions with the person and others on the set).

I'm not saying it's Scarlett but maybe before you go around saying "Are we kidding right now?" and "are you listening to yourself?" you should actually read the document in question and get some of the BASIC facts correct.

DP. I would advise not reading anything between the lines other than what is written. For example, it does not say Baldoni was banned from that set. There are redacted words before "Mr. Baldoni not be permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences" which is written in subjunctive mood. It could very well be that someone asked, suggested, or requested that Baldoni not be permitted on set, but that this request was not granted. The same goes for declarant's request that he be banned from the marketing and PR.

I don't like Baldoni and will be amused if this is all true, but right now this looks like mad libs and could be all hype like the letter Hudson wrote implying that dozens of content creators were on TAG's list but it was really just Popcorned Planet. Not clear who marked this information confidential and can unseal it. If this person is going to testify their identity is going to be revealed, so what is this theater? I'm skeptical.

Yup, me too. Zero reason for redaction.