Anonymous wrote:Can anyone summarize that? I don’t have the app and that link won’t open for me.

Those links seem to open in computer browsers but not on mobile.

A person who apparently claims to be an attorney goes through all mentions of the subpoena starting in CRD and NYT. Thinks "obtained through a civil process, including a civil subpoena" is strange wording (what is a "civil process" and what else did the process include). The federal complaint by Blake adds "served on Jonesworks LLC" and calls it a "lawful subpoena." Commenter disagrees that it was a lawful subpoena, if it's Vanzan, as she doesn't see what claims they had to serve it. She feels there's more to it. It's a short video.

Can anyone summarize that? I don’t have the app and that link won’t open for me.

Another attorney’s take on subpoenagate. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP86kjXjq/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Lively defender and the Tik Tok muting seems weird to me. Was this really done by a Lively person because they were afraid of what’s in there? Wasn’t it just stuff other people were saying and repeating on Reddit — I don’t really understand what purpose silencing NAG on this accomplishes? If anything, won’t just make her put out more videos, and be more anti-Lively?

I am open to the idea that this was something Lively’s team did for some reason. I just don’t understand how it could possibly benefit them, and wouldn’t obviously harm them more.

Agree with this. I'm really curious because since it's multiple creators, that seems coordinated by Lively or her supporters, but it also really makes no sense to do it (it's out there anyway and Freedman brought it up now in Abel's case) but Lively has done other things that didn't make sense to me so it's entirely possible. I'd love to know the motivation of whoever did it.

Lively and Jones have both stated in pleadings, without being asked, that there was a subpoena so it doesn't make sense to do that and then be cagey about it, knowing it would surely come up in discovery. They do seem defensive about it though (and they should because I'm of the opinion it looks shady).

They could not deny the existence of the subpoena because they told the N.Y. Times it existed, which was the reassurance the N.Y. Times needed to include the texts in its article. I doubt they were thinking that the actual litigation against Wayfarer would be vigorously defended at that time.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Lively defender and the Tik Tok muting seems weird to me. Was this really done by a Lively person because they were afraid of what’s in there? Wasn’t it just stuff other people were saying and repeating on Reddit — I don’t really understand what purpose silencing NAG on this accomplishes? If anything, won’t just make her put out more videos, and be more anti-Lively?

I am open to the idea that this was something Lively’s team did for some reason. I just don’t understand how it could possibly benefit them, and wouldn’t obviously harm them more.

Agree with this. I'm really curious because since it's multiple creators, that seems coordinated by Lively or her supporters, but it also really makes no sense to do it (it's out there anyway and Freedman brought it up now in Abel's case) but Lively has done other things that didn't make sense to me so it's entirely possible. I'd love to know the motivation of whoever did it.

Lively and Jones have both stated in pleadings, without being asked, that there was a subpoena so it doesn't make sense to do that and then be cagey about it, knowing it would surely come up in discovery. They do seem defensive about it though (and they should because I'm of the opinion it looks shady).

Anonymous wrote:OMG someone needs to learn how to recognize sarcasm.

There have been three different requests for a summary over the last several pages, and none of them were responded to in any way, including with lols as though they were jokes.

Were you joking and did I just waste 10 minutes of my time? If so, you really suck.

OMG someone needs to learn how to recognize sarcasm.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize what this thread is all about?

Honestly, why? If you haven’t been around for the last 580 pages, I do not recommend you start now.

Blake Lively worked on a movie, It Ends With Us, that Justin Baldoni directed and starred in (as her abusive spouse that she leaves at the end of the movie).

She alleges Baldoni engaged in a bunch of weird behavior that all added up to sexual harassment. It’s unclear whether this behavior affected just lively or others on set. Halfway through the movie, shooting stopped because of the strike. Before she would return to filming, she made a list of 17 demands she required before she would shoot again with him, including things like no more putting extra nudity into scenes without my agreement. No more discussing porn in my presence. No more remarks about communicating with my dead father.

Baldoni said he didn’t do a bunch of these things. But agreed they shouldn’t be done on set and agreed to pledge not to do them in future, and signed the list.

Shooting continued and I don’t think there were further SH problems.

Towards the end of shooting, Lively wanted to see the dailies and ultimately re-edited the Final Cut of the film so that her version, not Baldoni’s, was the one seen in theaters. It’s believed she also was behind the whole cast unfollowing him on Instagram.

When press for the movie release started, Lively received a lot of bad press. Many say this was completely self inflicted because she was promoting a movie about DV but wasn’t addressing the topic head on, but instead was encouraging women to “wear their florals” and go see it with friends. She was also promoting her liquor brand as part of the movie PR, which was esp tone deaf re DV. On the other hand, the PR strategy was specifically NOT to promote the film as a DV narrative, since typically that doesn’t sell tickets.

Lively blamed Baldoni’s PR for her negative press coverage and wanted him to sign a statement taking responsibility for it, which he refused.

She refused to promote the movie with him. He had to sit in the basement of the film theater with his family and team while she walked the red carpet with the rest of the cast, and he watched the premier in a separate theater than her and the cast.

Six months later, Lively sued Baldoni, his production company, and his PR reps for sexual harassment and for running a smear campaign against her in retaliation for her speaking up about SH. Shortly after, the NYT ran a piece about the conflict, reprinting text messages from his PR team reflecting that they did have a plan in place to watch how social media was covering the movie release and related press in August and September. This plan referred to someone on their team named “Jed Wallace” who told them they were “killing it on Reddit.” The plan alludes to doing more than monitoring socials and actively influencing public opinion, though other texts between Baldoni’s PR agents also talk about only having to monitor socials and never had to engage the bigger plan to heavily influence. Baldoni himself occasionally comments on the PR campaign, wanting a campaign similar to the one run against Hailey Bieber but not wanting bots. NYT runs an article repeating a lot of the texts, which make it look like Baldoni and team ran a smear campaign against Lively.

I don’t remember the order, but I think Baldoni sued Lively next for defamation, extortion, breach of contract, etc, basically saying the smear campaign was a lie, and they were only monitoring socials because Lively was trying to steal the movie from Baldoni. Not in any way related to the SH (which they say never happened).

Some of the SH allegations in Lively’s original complaint appear to have been overstated, which Baldoni supporters take as evidence that Lively wanted to make Baldoni look bad, and expected him to back down and settle rather than fight.

In signing the 17 point agreement before returning to filming, Baldoni did specifically agree not to retaliate against Lively. And the text messages (which Baldoni didn’t think Lively would ever see) do sound like he is trying to make himself look good and potentially make Lively look bad — he argues this wasn’t because of the SH, but because of her plan to steal the movie and make him look bad.

The movie, btw, was a crazy success that no one expected. I think it was marketed alongside Lively’s husband’s Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds). IEWU made $400 million dollars worldwide, which is insane. There is a book sequel, which would be a hot property to follow with, if this whole movie hadn’t been such a clusterflock.

Both sides here are angry at the other.

I am pro-Lively but tried to make this balanced.

Hope this helps. Run away while you can.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

This is how we can tell you didn't read the exculpatory evidence because otherwise you would have known the full context of text messages were omitted from the NYT article and Justin had actually texted his PR team he didn't want to slander her. None of know what you're talking about.

Saying he didn't want to slander her is not exculpatory. He isn't accused of slander -- he's accused of a retaliatory PR campaign. Even if everything they posted online was true or couched as opinion (so not slander), by spreading negative publicity about an employee who had brought credible SH allegations, they were engaging in retaliatory behavior. Especially when there are a number of texts where Justin makes it clear the goal of the campaign is to discredit Lively should she speak publicly about her allegations.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

She made multiple complaints about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior, to Wayfarer and Sony, before the hiatus. These are detailed in both their complaints. She did not go through formal channels to file a "sexual harassment complaint" because (1) she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production, and (2) there were structural problems that made a more formal complaint possible -- Wayfarer had inadequate HR resources and Sony, which had a more formal HR process, kept kicking things back to Wayfarer. But Lively repeatedly raised concerns about everything she alleges in her lawsuit -- Baldoni asking her trainer about her weight, the unscripted kissing in scenes, the proposed nudity in the birth scene, Heath showing her the birth video, etc. None of this came as a surprise to Baldoni or Heath when it was raised again later in the 17 point list -- they knew she was unhappy about that stuff and had had discussions with her and with Sony about it.

That's not Justin or the studio's problem that she didn't take the proper protocol and issue a sexual harassment complaint to Sony and/or SAG-AFTRA as soon as she felt he was sexually harassing her. Had she done that, her case would have been rock solid. She's under fire because she has left out pertinent details and fabricated quotes by Baldoni and others on a number of occasions in her amended complaint that put the validity of her case into question. She is a grown woman and veteran of the industry and at this conjecture post me-too, there are clear conduct and behavioral boundaries that every cast member is subject to and is aware of what to do when those lines are crossed. Especially the lead stars of the film. She made a plethora of inappropriate sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, physical moves, and threats against Baldoni that any reasonable person could argue were in equal value to the ones she claims he made against her and yet, he did not file a sexual harassment suit or complaint. This is their problem and now the courts will decide and weigh in all of their conduct and exchanges to evaluate if it had malice.

Where is the proof that Lively has stated that 1, she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production and 2, stated that there were structural problems that made a formal complaint possible (I think you meant impossible). Show me where she specifically stated these two key issues about sexual harassment specifically. Sony has again denied she filed a sexual harassment complain to HR. Lively did not issue a sexual harassment allegation until the lawsuit in December.

What Wayfarer should have done, and what a competent company would do, is involve HR as soon as it was clear Lively was raising these concerns, and create a formal process to address discomfort and prevent any future issues moving forward. That is what Sony would have done, for instance, if this happened on the set of a movie they were actually producing as the producing studio. Sony has lots of lawyers and HR professionals who would have investigated and laid out a framework for moving forward. Wayfarer blew it off, figured Blake would get over it, and made no changes to their operations. And then during the hiatus when Blake became so stressed about returning to set and having to film all her intimate scenes with people who had repeatedly blown off her concerns specifically about how they handled intimacy and nudity on set, she essentially forced Wayfarer to do what they should have done from the jump and commit to certain protections on the set, and also forced Sony to get more involved to protect the production and actors.

To say that's not a "credibly SH allegation" is bizarre to me. You can't avoid a credible allegation by just refusing to take an employee's *repeated* complaints about behavior related to sex and gender in the workplace seriously. And it wasn't even just Blake! At least one other actress on the set vocally complained about gendered or sexist comments by Heath. So you have what appears to be a pattern of behavior that is making multiple women on the set uncomfortable to the point of raising concerns with Sony or directly with Heath and Baldoni, and Wayfarer at no point initiated an HR investigation into the incidents to try and address the issues. In fact, Wayfarer didn't initiate an investigation until 2025, when they hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment on the set of the movie, likely because they knew the total absence of any action by the company to look into these allegations looks really, really bad for their defense against Blake's claims.

That's not what I said. The burden of proof is on her to prove she was a victim of pervasive workplace sexual harassment. And her allegations so far, have not met the threshold. You are trying to include unrelated complaints by another actress about another person on set to the sexual harassment case against Baldoni and it's comically absurd. Gendered and sexist comments doesn't = sexual harassment and neither does it rise to the threshold of pervasive workplace sexual harassment. If Lively felt that Wayfarer was so incompetent and fostered such an unsafe work environment, she could have completely severed ties with the production and never returned. What we do know is she that was enjoying the production and the cast and crew (including Justin), until he rebuffed some of her intiial demands. As time moved forward, she drafted a list of demands that they all agreed to before resuming filming, and she had no issues after the fact.

The idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer didn't know about the SH allegations until Blake filed her lawsuit is ludicrous. They not only knew, there are multiple texts between Baldoni and Abel where he expresses concern about the allegations being made public. There are even texts between Abel and others where she expresses concern about how the allegations could affect Baldoni's reputation or the film. These texts date as far back as January 2024 when the movie was still in production. They knew. They knew and did nothing to address it, but gosh they sure were busy little bees when it came to making sure no one would believe Blake if she came forward, by trashing her rep online via TAG and JW.

I would love to see the text message exchanges between Baldoni and Abel that you have that show he expressed concern about sexual harassment allegations being made. I would also love to see the dates presented on the text messages about the sexual harassment you have because that was a point of contention for his NYT lawsuit with the dates being redacted. It's interesting in February Blake was shut down by Judge Liman from obtaining 2 years worth of text messages and phone records she was trying to subpoena from Baldoni. Further cementing the argument that her team nor the NYT's had all the text messages and evidence they claimed they did.

It is 100% their problem.

If you run a business, and an employee starts making complaints about your behavior or another employee's behavior, and the complaints involve sexual comments or situations, or gendered or sexist comments, the onus is on YOU to investigate those complaints and address them. The employee is not actually required to say "this is sexual harassment" in order to preserve a right to sue later. And in fact, the first few complaints may not even constitute sexual harassment because if it's not quid pro quo, and if the behavior stopped after the first or second incident, it's unlikely it would rise to the level of "severe and pervasive" needed for a hostile work environment claim.

But the employer has a duty to look into the incidents and address them. Even if the employee doesn't say "this is sexual harassment." This is why employers generally have HR staff who are well versed in SH and other forms of workplace harassment who can step in and investigate and then suggest a plan for going forward that will prevent a couple incidents from becoming SH if the incidents continue or worsen. This is one of the main purposes of HR.

So yes, it is very much Justin's and Jamey's and Wayfarer's problem that after multiple complaints from Blake concerning issues that could give rise to an SH claim (including Justin requesting Blake's weight from her trainer, and Blake complaining about Jamey looking at her when she was topless/nursing/pumping, both of which happened either in pre-production or very early in filming and both of which Wayfarer was fully aware of) they failed to involve HR, conduct and investigation, and take steps to address any issues. Instead, they tried to placate Blake with apologies/promises, and then proceeded to pressure her to do unscripted nudity. And then Justin told Jamey to go show Blake Jamey's wife's birth video, which is just a weird thing to do at work in general, but especially weird when you remember that at this point, Blake had expressed multiple complaints about Justina and Jamey violating boundaries.

Their failure to involve HR very early on when it was clear there was some kind of boundary/miscommunication issue between Blake and Justin and possibly between Blake and Jamey was stupid, and potentially, a massive liability.

This is a film production. There are unions the actors are represented by who are responsible for ensuring their clients are in a safe workplace. Lively did not go to through her union or filed a formal HR complaint to Sony or Wayfarer as she was supposed to. It's not their responsibility to invoke HR when the employee did not report a formal HR complaint. This is the reality for nearly all working companies in America. Plenty of employees make complaints about sexist, religious, political, or unpalatable jokes or comments made towards them or another person or group and none of these complaints are taken seriously unless they make a formal complaint to HR so they can begin a proper investigation. Lively did not do this and thus, no HR investigation commenced. Wayfarer went above and beyond accommodating Lively's numerous request and demands. And when everyone agreed to her final 17 point demand, she went back to work without issue as stated in the suit. They listened, took action, and performed to her standard. This solidifies the fact that she felt safe enough to continue working there.

Now she's doubling back and making insidious claims to sexual harassment and a retaliatory hate campaign once she received widespread backlash for her tone deaf marketing over the film and her subsequent hair and drink line failures. She admitted to interviewers she had never had the experiences Lily Bloom had and neither did she conceive the "Grab your florals" marketing pitch. If her argument had any merit, she should be suing Sony for the backlash and her abysmal sales. She wanted the narrative changed so she's suing him to destroy his reputation and career. Because she isn't that smart, she didn't realize he has all the original dailies and audio + the text messages and email exchanges to refute many of her claims.

You or others keep asserting that this is the "proper" way to report sexual harassment on a film set and... it's not.

Sure, she could have reported the incidents to SAG. That's one way to go about it. SAG would likely kick it back to the production company and say "please address." Even if the complaints didn't say "this is sexual harassment." So Wayfarer and Blake would wind up in the same position as they did, which is where Blake is complaining about behavior she believes to be problematic, and Wayfarer knows it. This changes nothing about the fact pattern except puts SAG on notice, but I don't see what good it does.

Also, I don't know that all of the incidents would be covered by SAG. The pressure on her to do a scene nude at the last minute -- definitely, they have guidelines for nudity and this explicitly violated those guidelines. But by the time this happened, there was already a laundry list of incidents.

The first incident happened in pre-production and I don't know that SAG would even have any say in that -- Baldoni asking Lively's trainer for her weight. It didn't happen on set. It did concern Lively as an actor, so maybe the union would have a say, but I don't know. Again, had Lively gone to the union here, I think they would have just alerted Wayfarer and said "hey, there's an issue with this production." Which they already knew.

Also, one thing SAG does in situations like this is ensure that an actor has representation and advocates. For someone like Lively, there's no point -- she has agency representation, she has lawyers, she's already advocating for herself. So SAG's involvement isn't as important as it would be for a rank and file member.

Anyway, there's no reason she HAD to go to SAG to report this stuff. There's no rule that says you have to handle it that way. She *did* report these incidents. Wayfarer knew about them.

As for HR, that's the whole problem. Wayfarer does have HR. It looks like they just have one HR person for the whole company though, and there's no indication this person was ever on set. Was Lively ever provided with this person's contact info or a method for reaching out to them with issues? That's normally something an employee should be provided with before they start work. But it sounds like Lively's primary contacts at the company were Baldoni and Heath. So she reported the incidents to Baldoni and Heath, who were on set. If a company doesn't provide employees with access to HR, I don't see how you can complain that they failed to go through proper channels -- they didn't set up "proper channels."

This was Wayfarer's rodeo. If they wanted to ensure that any potential harassment issues were handled well, they could have set up their company and this production to ensure everything would be handled above-board by an HR professional. That's their failure. Lively appears to have made plenty of effort to make sure Wayfarer was aware of problems as they arose. They did nothing and did not even appear to understand that these repeat issues were signs of a serious issue, instead simply writing it off as an actress being difficult.

You keep mentioning her weight and that he talked about her weight with her trainer like this is some egregious strange thing. Baldoni has a documented history of back problems, including a herniated disk and chronic pain, which he has proof to show he manages through physical therapy and other treatments. This was a factor in his decision making on set and and why he was concerned about protecting himself from further injury. That's why he inquired about her weight and how he could train to lift her and protect his back when working with her personal trainer because he had to lift her during one of the scenes. She took this as saying he "fat shamed" her and ran to her husband with this narrative. He never addressed her about the comment nor called her fat but this is the way she interpreted information she got from the trainer. And take caution to notice he asked the trainer HOW he could train to lift her, not how she could lose weight to accommodate him. Very important distinction to note when she and the trainer are cross-examined and forced to explain to the judge how he "fat shamed" her.

It is her responsibility to report sexual harassment to her union's HR. She did not do that, no HR investigation will commence. That's exactly how it works. Wayfarer did exactly what they were supposed to do. Listened, took action, and accommodated her demands. And she went back to work without issue. The burden of proof is on her.

Asking for her weight as part of a discussion about the lift would have been appropriate -- just have the stunt coordinator get the relevant info and then create a lift that will work for his back problems.

Asking someone who works for Blake for private health info is a violation of privacy. Which was immediately apparent to the trainer, who responded by immediately reporting to his employer (Blake) that he had been asked to provide this info.

I would also be interested to hear from the trainer exactly what was asked and how. If Baldoni said "I'm concerned about this lift because of my back issues," I would assume a trainer who is a professional would say "oh I understand why you are worried but I can't disclose a client's weight -- I recommend you discuss it with Blake directly or work with your stunt coordinator."

If, on the other hand, Baldoni didn't mention the list at all and instead said something about Blake needing to lose weight for the production, it's very different, isn't it? That would get into the realm of fat shaming, which is what Blake alleges.

So we don't know enough about this to know whether it was harassment or not. Sure, Baldoni is now saying that he was asking because he was worried about his back. But is that what he said at the time? If not, why not? Why was the trainer bothered enough by the conversation that he felt he had to disclose it to Blake and Ryan?

We can't assume either of their accounts is "the truth." There is a third party here, the trainer, who has important info about what happened and we have nothing from that person yet. Presumably he will be deposed or served interrogatories and eventually the truth will come out.

Huh? JB asking her weight for a scene is not a ‘violation of privacy’ in any legal sense. I think you’re trying to pull in privacy laws regarding PHI and ‘covered entities’ - which Baldoni obviously isn’t- to confuse issues. You are either totally uneducated or purposely obfuscating.

I think people forget that they shared a trainer. So JB asked HIS trainer how much he thought Blake weighed so he could train for the scene and prevent injury. Not an invasion of privacy. I’m pretty sure the trainer could’ve given a ballpark estimate to work with. This trainer was clearly being messy and violated Justin’s privacy by running to Blake and telling her what he (the trainer) had discussed with another client (Justin). If it was just about privacy, the trainer would’ve just said “I’m not at liberty to share” or something like that, but the trainer was trying to carry favor with Blake and Ryan by throwing Justin under the bus—a common theme in this case, as one could argue Jones and the entire iewu cast did the same. It’s all about the power dynamics.

Maybe. We can't know until we've heard from the trainer and have more info from Justin about what they discussed and more info from Blake about what her trainer told her.

I also think that if Justin had simply told the trainer he needed Blake's weight to determine whether he could lift her for the scene, the trainer would have just said "oh I can't disclose that, sorry" and moved on.

Maybe the fact that the trainer told Blake about the conversation means the trainer is a "messy" person. OR maybe it means that what Justin asked was not straightforward or professional. Maybe it means Justin said things about Blake's weight that were inappropriate to the trainer's ears, and/or was demanding about finding out her weight (not accepting the trainer's explanation that he couldn't disclose a client's weight to another client). I'm just speculating here. It could be a variety of things, none of us know.

Justin could barely assert himself to express his dissatisfaction with the script re-writes. I highly doubt he said anything disparaging about her weight that would quantify in the realm of fat shaming. That groveling voicenote was an overarching representation of his character through production and consistent with his capitulation to Blake at every turn. I feel very strongly that Blake either overreacted to the comment (much like she did for the perfume remarks or the birthing videos she called porn) or as you stated, the trainer misrepresented what he actually said to her and caused another stirrup.

Hard to reconcile your view of poor little intimidated Justin with the guy who felt free enough to mansplain how all NORMAL women birth children to Lively, so you might want to recalibrate there, partner.

See how you didn't address the fact that she lied and called the birthing videos porn but attacked Justin instead and he wasn't even the one who showed her the video. Pure comedy.

DP, but the PP was obviously talking about the allegations that Justin, in trying to convince Blake to do the birth scene fully nude, that it was "not normal" to wear a hospital gown when giving birth.

The incident with the birth video, involving Heath, was on a different day and PP didn't mention it at all.

But also Lively never says the video was porn -- she says in her complaint that when she saw a nude woman in a compromised position in the video, she and her assistant thought Heath was showing them porn, because Heath has neglected to tell Lively what it was or ask her permission to show her such an intimate video.

Yes! The pro-Baldoners rarely honestly address the actual arguments we are making, but regularly manufacture a strawman that is easier for them to handwave away. Their constant sea lioning is so frustrating. I honestly don’t know how you have the patience to consistently address each argument with facts, one by one, while they just ignore them and create new straw men in their next replies. *sigh*

I find it very tiresome in general the low-iq speculation that every counter argument or commentary against someone you like must be a straw man, a bot, a cult member, etc. This is the laziest assessment one can come up with to detract from having to explain and present logical arguments and facts. If the case was as clear cut as Lively loons claim, there wouldn't be such a contentious and divided furor over this and she would be flying high with love and support from every corner of the internet. That clearly isn't the case.

It *was* a strawman, though. Some pro-Baldoner began their argument with the assertion that Baldoni’s personality was groveling and unassertive, and that he never would have insisted on imposing his own body norms on Lively to fat shame her: “Justin could barely assert himself to express his dissatisfaction with the script re-writes. I highly doubt he said anything disparaging about her weight that would quantify in the realm of fat shaming. That groveling voicenote was an overarching representation of his character through production and consistent with his capitulation to Blake at every turn.”

And I responded with a reminder about when he imposed his own body norms over Lively by mansplaining to her how a “normal” woman looked when she was in childbirth. THAT Baldoni who insisted to Lively that normal women tore their tops off to bare their breasts in childbirth was definitely not unassertive and groveling, nor was he afraid to tell Lively his thoughts on how he thought her body should look in the movie.

To which some pro-Baldoner responded with a total non-sequitur about how I didn’t address the porn/not porn birth video. That wasn’t my point. And they didn’t respond to my point. Instead, they manufactured another argument, and said I didn’t respond to that.

I hate to tell you, but that’s a strawman, dude. I find it super tiresome, too, so maybe just stop doing that.

I mean, the fact that this was a strawman is clear as day to me, and yet you are ignoring it while throwing insults at us — though we actually factually addressed the PP’s argument. Yet you’re over here throwing down “laziest assessment one can come up with to detract from having to explain and present logical arguments and facts” (which we actually did!!) and name calling us “Lively loons.”

Take a moment and reflect. As always, Team Baldoni is so, so wrong but is doubling down on insults anyway. 🤮

Dp, can’t tell what you are trying to argue is so apparent because your position is nonsensical. Baldoni asking the trainer how much Blake weighs for purposes of lifting her is not fatshaming on many levels, including the most obvious that the comment was not made directly to Blake. Resorting to insults or the vomit emoji doesn’t do much when your “facts” either don’t exist in the manner you represent them, or are hopelessly weak.

DP. It could be fat shaming specifically because he didn't say it directly to Blake. If he or someone else actually associated with the movie had reached out to Lively to get her weight and explained it was specifically to help coordinate the lift, it would more clearly not be fat shaming.

The fact that he chose instead to reach out to someone outside the production who he thought might know Blake's weight indicates that maybe this was not a straightforward and practical as he now claims. If you need info for something work related, and for sure a colleague has this info (Blake obviously knows her own weight), why would you reach out to someone who doesn't even work there to get that info? It doesn't make sense.

I'll also note that it's interesting that Baldoni's pleadings don't include screenshots or direct quotes of Baldoni's communications with the trainer. Maybe they spoke by phone. But he includes so many other communications directly, or includes direct quotes in other situations. But regarding the trainer, he just says this: "On April 22, 2023, Baldoni privately reached out to Don, his personal trainer, to ask what Lively weighed so that he could train his back muscles in preparation for a lift scene."

It's weird. And the trainer immediately contacted Lively to let her know it had happened. Doesn't this make you wonder how that conversation went? It makes me wonder. I'm not saying it was for sure fat shaming, but it's really strange and the fact that Baldoni doesn't say explicitly how the conversation went or provide evidence that he really was just asking because of his back makes me wonder.

I wonder if the people who are so sure this was not fat shaming will still say that if/when we actually hear from Don the trainer. How would he describe their interaction? How did he describe it to Lively when he contacted her to let her know it had happened, and why did he feel compelled to do that?

The trainer is a long time friend of Blake's and a super catty ahole who had to be basically muzzled on social media by her team after being such a shit stirrer it was going to impact the case and the media started running with it. This dude is ALL about the drama! Now that it's getting real and he might be asked to testify that could change but he's basically a dude hired to blow smoke up Blake's ass about how she's the hottest chick in Hollywood, he's not some objective third party and (like Blake and Ryan) seems to have the maturity of an 8 year old so no doubt he ran to Blake to make it a fat shaming thing vs a relevant question.

This should be a lesson for Baldoni and any other director to not concede on things like accommodating actors or hiring through a network. Get your own people and rule with an iron fist.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Lively defender and the Tik Tok muting seems weird to me. Was this really done by a Lively person because they were afraid of what’s in there? Wasn’t it just stuff other people were saying and repeating on Reddit — I don’t really understand what purpose silencing NAG on this accomplishes? If anything, won’t just make her put out more videos, and be more anti-Lively?

I am open to the idea that this was something Lively’s team did for some reason. I just don’t understand how it could possibly benefit them, and wouldn’t obviously harm them more.

Look up “intimidation tactics.” It’s not rocket science.

Can someone summarize what this thread is all about?

I’m a Lively defender and the Tik Tok muting seems weird to me. Was this really done by a Lively person because they were afraid of what’s in there? Wasn’t it just stuff other people were saying and repeating on Reddit — I don’t really understand what purpose silencing NAG on this accomplishes? If anything, won’t just make her put out more videos, and be more anti-Lively?

I am open to the idea that this was something Lively’s team did for some reason. I just don’t understand how it could possibly benefit them, and wouldn’t obviously harm them more.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's unlikely anyone on Lively's team got tiktok videos muted. What is more likely is that an overzealous fan complained about "copyright breaches" and some kind of automatic mute function in TikTok was triggered.

It doesn't make sense for Lively's team to mute a couple videos out of hundreds discussing the same subject, after weeks of such discussion. Even though NAG has a lot of views, those two videos are ultimately a drop in the bucket, and the rest are still up. Plus of course she is up in arms about it and complaining and it's spurring another round of criticism/accusations at Blake and Ryan.

It's just much more likely this was someone unrelated to the case acting on their own, combined with probably some automatic copyright protocols in TikTok in the case of an actual copyright violation.

Gaslighting continues…. I’m sure it was some zealous fan and not the ex CIA “pr” person that Lively/Reynolds hires the spring. A lot of videos on TikTok and YouTube disappeared shortly after his hiring,

I think it's unlikely anyone on Lively's team got tiktok videos muted. What is more likely is that an overzealous fan complained about "copyright breaches" and some kind of automatic mute function in TikTok was triggered.

It doesn't make sense for Lively's team to mute a couple videos out of hundreds discussing the same subject, after weeks of such discussion. Even though NAG has a lot of views, those two videos are ultimately a drop in the bucket, and the rest are still up. Plus of course she is up in arms about it and complaining and it's spurring another round of criticism/accusations at Blake and Ryan.

It's just much more likely this was someone unrelated to the case acting on their own, combined with probably some automatic copyright protocols in TikTok in the case of an actual copyright violation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NAG going off on the subpoena videos being removed.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden (the videos are called "the thing that happened")

Interesting, can’t wait to see what is uncovered next on the VanZan front. Clearly something Blake is desperately trying to bury.

The video is hilarious, she refers to BL only as "gorgeous movie star" and the subpoena as the "legal demand" and if it's all so legit, why do they want discussion deleted? I was actually skeptical of this yesterday because why would they want these vids deleted weeks later when they basically admitted to Daily Mail that they used a Doe lawsuit, so it's wild to me that someone has gotten videos deleted from multiple creators, using phony copyright claims (there was no background music, the creators are merely giving their own opinions) which are apparently not appealable on TikTok. I can't stand Freedman but it would be funny if he made something of this. I hope he does. I mean, unless it's one of Blake's fans making the copyright claims and not her legal team... I want this mystery to be solved now too!

We warned her this girl was devious. She does not care if you're neutral or not. Anything that even alleges to incriminate her, they will silence. We have dozens of content creators that have been muted or had videos deleted from bee better company to perez hilton, katie pope, and bohemian diva. We have never heard censorship claims from the pro-Lively camp. A man they say who has the power and money to orchestrate a mass hate campaign surely would have attempted to silence his dissenters by now right?

The funny thing is that she had previously gone out of her way to be very neutral. Clearly, that’s over. They really don’t think through how their ham handedness is going to come off.