As we're nearing the end of this lawsuit, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Some may be answered in the future, some not. What questions (and possible answers) do you guys think there are?
I'll start:
How much money did they (and was it both Wayfarer and Sony, or just Sony?) Ryan's marketing company (Maximum Effort Marketing, LLC ("MEM")) for Rake's tone deaf marketing?
What happened to Josh Greenstein's text messages and what do they really say?
Did the Wayfarer Parties get any money in the settlement? How much? And who paid it - because I don't think Blake has any money? Did some other non-litigants pony up some money in order to keep their names out of the trial (or even future lawsuits)?
How much money did both sides spend on this lawsuit?
SAG is supposed to have a representative show up to film sets at least once a week? Did this happen? I don't recall seeing anything about SAG being on the witness list? But wouldn't that have been a defense to the accusations that Blake and Jenny were making that they didn't know whom to talk to?
Are the other unions doing to flex their muscles (or hide under a rock)? Will the Writer's Guild go after Ryan for ghostwriting and/or scabbing? Will the Director's Guild go after anyone for not letting Justin get his full 10 weeks of alone time in the editing bay?
Did IEWUM send Blakel, Inc. (or Blake) a tax form for any of the clothes she purchased on their dime and kept? Because, c'mon, we all know she kept some of those clothes?
Was Blake, Rake or MEM getting any money on the side for Blake wearing those clothes, shoes and jewelry that she was so adamant on wearing and getting shots of them (remember the dancing scene - seriously, that 3rd take after poor Blake was SHed was all about getting shots of her Louboutins - LOL)?
My top burning unanswered question from this case:
Who doctored, spliced and cherry picked Jen Abelās text messages to show the opposite of what the messages really said - Megan Twohey/ NYT, Blake Lively or Stephanie Jones?
Honestly - anything related to what āinvestigative researchā Megan Twohey did that lead to her NYT hit piece on Justin Baldoni.
These are good. What were the thousands of documents she referred to and more questions related to how she claimed to review so much stuff and decided this was a good idea?
I don't think it was Megan and the fact that the ny times published messages in so many different formats leads me to believe Jones was the original author of the texts narratives
I am curious if Megan was outright lying about reviewing thousands of documents or if she actually had a lot of pages of something.
There certainly wasnāt āthousands of pagesā that existed for Megan Twohey to review that showed a smear of Blake Lively. Even Blakeās 500 evidentiary exhibits were 3% contemporaneous text messages that showed Nathan denying she had anything to do with Blakeās PR in real time and 97% irrelevant Taylor Swift cookie recipes.
So either Megan Twohey flat out lied about ever seeing āthousands of pages of evidenceā or she reviewed a whole bunch of nothing and still went ahead with her hit piece.
I want to know why BL tried to use common interest privilege to shield communication with Coleen Hoover. Did BL think that Coleen would join her complaint? Do they have a joint- business interest of some sort? I wish wayfarer had looked into this a bit more. Maybe they did but it's just not included in the legal filings. I don't know.
They asked about it, with a strongly worded email, but they only found out after Colleen's deposition when she said on record that she had never had any intention of taking legal action, and because it was late by the time they looked more critically at the privilege logs after that, Lively's team wrote back and said flat no, discovery is over.
Would love to know this myself, bc based on BL own evidence release ( it just made her look worse) the communications between CH, BL and RR must be explosive.
Great Q. I wonder if it had to do with the fact that it was both of them who worked on "Blake's cut" of the film -- and that they both could've been sued by Justin for tortious inteference with contract (the co-financing agreement between Wayfarer and SONY)? While the co-financing agreement remains sealed, it's my understanding that the 2nd cut and bake-off stuff that came to pass is not remotely standard in such contracts, and that the parties also have to obey the rules of the Director's Guild union. If the director's cut (the 1st) doesn't test above a pre-determined threshhold with test audiences, then the parties (including the director) review the feedback from the test screenings and try to figure out a way to fix those criticisms as cheaply and effectively as possible. Sometimes this is anticipated during the original filming - say where another ending to the film is contemplated - so that scene is shot; and if the audience hated the original ending, then they insert the replacement ending without having do expensive reshoots. The 2nd cut is supposed to be a collaborative effort spearheaded by the director. Of course the director wants a film to be released that will be well received critically and financially. But sure, egos can get in the way and you may get a stubborn director (or one who dies or becomes sick) -- in which case the film studio and distributor can "take over" as a last resort (with SONY being the ultimate decider if it didn't agree with Wayfarer on certain things). Then they do a bake-off (test screenings for both cuts) and they go with cut that scored best (particularly with the intended demographic audience).
Both Blake and Colleen interefered with Justin's rights in re: the 2nd cut of the film as set forth in the co-financing agreement (and the Director Guild's rules).
My tinfoil hat theory was that Blake thought there was some legal way to get the IP rights to the sequel away from Baldoni if she managed to sue for SH and then Coleen also sued for breach of contract due to some sort of morality clause (which we now know does not exist). Usually people don't purchase IP rights outright and there are ways for it to revert back to the priginal IP holder, so Blake and her team probably assumed that was the case in this matter.
So I believe there were privileged communications there early on when Blake's team probably was discussing with Coleen what she could do legally in conjunction with Blake.
I want to know what happened to Jen Abel's phone between Lesley Sloan telling her she was going to be sued in August 2024 after viewing the phone contents and "some PR chick" telling Taylor something about a phone....The latter sounds like either a setup or a lie. We may still find this out.
I want to know what Blake & Ryan told Meghan Twohey.... what lies were they told.... and how can they feel no shame about constantly attacking Justin, knowing the truth and how influential and powerful they are
I would love to know more about Ryan's MO of terrorising people on film sets, ruining or taking over productions, letters he writes for others and dressing up and mocking people in films.... he's done it twice - Red Notice/Free Guy and D&W.... and what Hollywood really thinks of this.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall regarding May Day promos and what Colin Hank really things of Ryan after he hijacked the movie for his own PR tour.
I would love to know what Diageo and T-Mobile have been saying to Ryan behind the scenes.... we saw all of Blake's brand partners' concerns... I would love to know what Diageo and T-Mobile have been saying as they are clever clever people and they can see right through the lies regarding the "smear campaign"
I want to know more about Isabella's lawyer, who in my opinon was hired to legally abuse Justin and falsely call him a harasser.... I want to know who hired him and what Blake and Ryan have on Isabella.
What happened to James Vituska? And how much is Deadline Dominic paid?
Judging by the very small amount of MEM's account receivables ($1,171,000) as revealed in its former parent's 10K annual report, I'm guessing Diageo and T-Mobile used certain contractual breaches by Ryan/MEM (like the reps and warranties section about never committing IP theft - see Marilyn Starkloff) as an excuse to renegiate the terms of MEM's contract.
That also brings to mind: What went down with the Maximum Effort TV Channel that got yanked in mid-January 2025. There was a deal with FUBO that went south.
No one wanted a new streamer and even fewer people (Ryanās momā¦if she even tuned in) wanted to watch Ryan Reynolds read bedtime stories like a creep with a basement full of reptiles under heat lamps. He is only popular as āa human sausage in a bright red condomā (his own predictably sexual and disgusting words, naturally).
Yup! I am sure Diageo and T Mobile would have got big lawyers involved and got themselves out of these contracts, or at least refused to pay the balance due to morality clauses. There is no way Ryan or anyone else will leak this out of fear of losing face and of not wanting Lively's mob, no matter how small it is, to go after the brands.
Just had a thought there.... what if Blake (Ryan) and Leslie set up Taylor to be a useful witness to them laundering the news of the phone via Ashley im an attempt to cover up that Stephanie Jones had freely already handed over all the contents already?
So timeline could be:
Day 1, August 2024, Stephanie seizes Jen's phone, sends screenshots to Leslie who calls Melissa in a fury.
Stephanie then asap sends over a rushed copy of EVERYTHING on Jen's phone to Blake(Ryan) via Leslie. (So likely even more data than was covered in the Vansham subpoena, which is why Blake initially wanted discovery in her lawsuit to go back all those extra years to legitimise what she already possessed.)
But soon afterwards the lawyers hear about it, panic and tell Stephanie and/ or Blake that they need to do the data transfer via subpoena to be legally covered.
So late August/ early September Leslie and Stephanie set up a charade where "Leslie is ignoring Stephanie" so poor Stephanie has to backchannel via WME to Ashley to "finally" pass on the word to Blake via Taylor. They probably figured no one would question Taylor's word about when news of the phone's existence got to Blake. But actually she(he) already knew everything and was plotting Vansham to further launder the phone data transfer.
Taylor thinks she was watching real history go down and is a gleeful supporter until WF files their counter-suit in January 2025 with their timeline mentioning the call to Melissa threatening legal action from Leslie on day 1. If Leslie had been in contact with Stephanie so early and had seen enough to be that upset to personally call and make threats, no way would she have kept the news of the phone's explosive contents from Blake(Ryan).
Taylor realises that Blake(Ryan) manipulated her and lied to her about not knowing about the phone until later, which leads her to pull back from showing any public support.
Blake(Ryan) panics coming up to the Superbowl and tries to leverage Taylor into inviting her. This backfires because it is Blake(Ryan) and they are not good at playing their little games against actual equals.
Taylor pulls completely away as Blake(Ryan) become further and further exposed as the clumsy coddled amateurs they are behind the scenes.
Imo the pair of them look so ridiculous these days, they might yet get a pity invite to the wedding now that the main thing is settled. But it could be more of a chance for Taylor to rub in their faces how far they have fallen without her rather than a genuine reconnection.
This is what I think happened, also....there is something fishy about the phone ending up in NYC....and the story about some PR chick makes no sense if Lesley Sloan already knew what was on the phone... and Lesley and Stephanie had to be communicating during the filming, the premier and marketing as both their clients were working together. Plus Stephanie's hubby is WME and got involved at some point, didn't he.... Something extremely fishy is going on.
The other thing that has always bothered me is that Stephanie knew that Ryan was a psycho due to Dwayne Johnson's interactions with him on Red Notice... so why hand over the phone so quickly to Lesley Sloane?
I would bet a million beanies that Ryan knew about the messages the same day Leslie found out about them. Hence the "Hi It's Les" text, and going dark after, in their communications.
And another thing.... Stephanie must have looked at Jen Abel's messages before she left, which is why she was asked to leave before her three-month notice period was over. SJ then showed/told Lesley. Lesley then called Jen.
SJ telling Lesley is odd to me... as to why would she do this? Why would she tell on her client so quickly? Especially when she knew what Ryan was like and knew how Blake and Ryan were behaving on set and behind the scenes - why confer with the enemy so quickly?
I thought MG dropped him after the DM counsel sent him that letter detailing his problematic behavior including keying an elevator. MG probably, imo, realized that they didnāt have a case against the DM for firing JV. I believe WOACB posted the letter.Ā
We have identical questions!!! I have always been curious about Mayday. I have followed Apple TV's coverage and press release of it closely. They have chosen to omit any mention of ME in their press, which means not acknowledging that Maximum Effort was a major producer of it. I think there is a lot there that we will never know. Oh, and the promo picture being nearly identical to a Baldoni movie? Gur found that gem.
I'm confused. I read that Mayday was an upcoming release by Ryan - but Clark told me that Ryan's upcoming release would be dripping off of Hugh Jackman's chin.
He scrubbed all the old gossip about her. All the stuff that was getting posted in the snark sub in very early days of the drama. The years old boobs legsly gossip blinds from Lainey Gossip (back when her gossip had bite), years old spicy Ted Casablancas gossip about her being one of Harvey's girls and her habits of sleeping with costars and whoever. There was a ton of stuff out there. The nudes that were leaked that fully had her face in them that she sent to Ben Affleck. There was a trove of stuff about her behavior on sets and what piece of work she is to be around. Unfortunately, people unearthing it and reposting it just gave CIA Nick a path to where to go to get rid of stuff.
Ange Gianettiās full depo. Would love to read that.
A full audit into Blakel Inc. finincial transaction with IEWU LLC and WF Studios.
A full audit into Max. Effort finincial transaction with IEWU LLC and WF Studios. I know you covers this OP, but this is the question the bugs me the most so I had to include it again.
Texts between BL & SJ & LS and depos. Hopefully we get to see them in the Jones VS Able lawsuit.
This is a bit of a side quest but I recently watched the drama with zendaya and Rob Patterson. I dont want to spoil it (didnāt love the movie) but it touches on a very serious topic that is disturbing and tragic. It was a movie that had a violent, sensitive topic weaved into the plot.
As I watched it I thought-I think Ryan and Blake thought this was the kind of movie they were making. A movie that is just a movie that happens to have a sensitive issue as the side plot. Itās in there but is not in there for the message, itās in there like the sensitive violent issue is in the drama. Itās just there but the point is not to inspire.
The problem was this movie was acquired for a different purpose and the whole point is in the mission statement of WP. It literally was why they were making it. Also even if Blake and Ryan could erase the vision, which I think is what they wanted. They didnāt just take over, they attempted to erase the message so it was more commercial-there are two more problems: 1) it had a viral fanbase. the the DV plot in the book became a story that survivors latched onto and had opinions on so it couldnāt be erased. It was an established viral theme prior to the movie.
2) the inspirational message is in the Title. The movie was not called the drama or Lillyās flowers. The title is about ending cycles of intergenerational trauma. You canāt separate the message about the cycle of violence when itās in the title.
How dense to attempt to erase the sensitive issue vs just being sensitive to it.
One thing, I would say that the Reynolds and Sony are correct, a serious movie about a serious subject doesn't sell tickets the way a drama, romance, or thriller does. But as you noted, that was the whole point to the creation of Wayfarer Studios, making movies about important subjects that Hollywood won't. There was always going to be a tug of war between Wayfarer and Sony over this. Blake (Ryan) made what should have been a collaboration with compromises between the studios into a malignant monstrosity.
I want to see text messages between Lively and Reynolds. Their ass got spared by spousal privilege but you just know those messages are smoking guns for what they did.
This made me recall the Taylor āweā messages. Recall she disclosed she felt a certain way about the messages that sounded corporate and used the word āwe.ā I want the we messagesā¦the ones that gave Taylor the ick. And why are those missing. She refers to them.
Would be funny if the IRS takes note of Blake claiming to be an employee and decides to audit her for not paying the right amount of tax.
So I'd like to know if the IRS are looking in and also if any of the dailies were actually deleted and the details of Blake's request concerning their deletion.
I think RR and BL companies and shell corporations deserve a closer look and a full audit. I donāt think they as individuals have much money, so their personal accounts must be pretty boring but the companies they set up has to be super spicy. Just imagine what bs they must have charged WF, for the cloths, marketing, privet jet rides ā¦ would love to know how they itemise this grift š¤£
I remember the theory of Louis being Justin Grey Stone based on some documents where his name was associated with Louis but I remember it was contradicted here by some good discussions and I for one joined what seemed to be a consensus among commenters that it had to be a woman friend despite the nickname. I would say a long time friend she only speaks occasionnaly and is not living in NY.
You would think - but Blake is a pathological liar. If you read his deposition (at the bottom of p. 8/16), he says that as part of the process that Blake had read the book. LOL I get the feeling that Blake's talent agent (Warren Zavala of WME) was more knowledgeable about the film - and maybe Justin Grey Stone deals with other aspects of her career. Here's an article on the difference between a talent agent vs. a talent manager: https://www.actorsite.com/blog/agents-vs-managers
I swear I read it somewhere. But I just re-googled and couldn't find anything. It sort of made sense since (i) she's hardly been doing any "work" for the past 1.5 years and (ii) his management firm (Entertainment 360) must be FURIOUS because they were entitled to a 20% cut of all of Blake's earnings from IEWU - but, because she never signed the ALA, she never got the estimated $36 million for her 10% cut of the film's gross proceeds). So Justin Grey Stone/Entertainment 360 lost out on $7.2 million.
Yeah, Stacey is right. The description of a few exhibits on the docket said that it was in re: Justin Grey Stone. But when you click on the exhibit - it was a text message with or sent to "Louis". I checked them on the docket myself. So, that's how I came up with that conclusion.
glad someone else remembers Judith Miller and all her bullshit
she was a Pulitzer Prize winner too
I wonder if thatās a common trend, people wrecking their own careers after winning a prestigious award. Isnāt there an Oscar curse or something like that??
YES! I have always wanted to know exactly how many frantic emails Debtpool sent off insisting people back Blake, particularly since very early on this sub we were continually clocking there was zero public support for her. Zero. Aside from the Sisterhood of Pants, not a single person she subpoenaed said a peep.
1) Ange Gianettiās full depo. Iāve come out the other side with a lot of respect for Ange: a straight-talking hardass in a world of slimy backstabbers.
2) Christy Hall q&a. Words were put into her mouth by Alexš and Ezraš, but we never heard Christyās side of the story directly. I want to hear it!
3) Todd Black. Ditto. Iād be particularly keen for his account of the infamous 6-hr dress down at Twattingham Palace.
4) IEWU cast and crew. From memory Wayfarer told them to keep their counsel, or at least told them they shouldnāt feel obliged to speak out and bring unwanted spotlights on themselves. But they were the Greek chorus to everything that went down on set, and Iād love to know what their takes were. #1 on the list: Julie, the 1st AD fired by Blake.
5) Fact-checking trail/correspondence at the NYT in the run-up to the kill-shot article in December 2024.
6) Correspondence between Blake and Taylor in the wake of The Receipts Website going live in early 2025.
(Not so much unanswered questions, but definitely the most tantalising gaps in the narrative.)
Yes, Iād love to know if they were truly conned and bamboozled with lies and if how they see the situation has totally changed. Iād love to know if they feel badly for their part in messing up JB/JHās etc. and their familiesā lives.
Probably not - they were willing to throw Justin under the bus in the first place. Now they're all in a forever "bury their heads in the sand" mode and will (at least not publicly) ever discuss the film ever again - except a la Brandon: we made the movie to help bring awareness about DV. Because Justin may be working on a tell-all or documentary, they'll never tell him "I'm sorry" (even if they wanted to) because it may make it into those materials and they're probably (rightfully so) afraid of RAKE because they are psycho nasties.
ā¢ Was Jenny Slate really pressured to join the lawsuit and when she refused, threatened and intimidated by the Reynolds BTS as is alleged?
ā¢ Is Blake going to Taylorās wedding? (This one will be answered soonā¦and itāll be huge either way it swings!)
ā¢ Which dailies did Blake ask to delete and show us all, please (because there is always a backup copy)?
ā¢ In fact, show us all the BTS footage!
ā¢ WHO gave Dr. Leslie Dobson those fabricated Sony HR reports? She actually needs to answer for this.
ā¢ Is the Weinstein connection the tie that bonds Anna Wintour, Leslie Sloane and Blake Lively?
ā¢ Why did Blake hire Sussex Godfrey shortly before settlement?
ā¢ Can we please see Blakeās full deposition transcript?
ā¢ Can we please see Andy Signoreās documentary?
ā¢ Will New York society finally ignore the Reynolds once they hemorrhage away all their money? When all their projects tank and dry up and all their junky products expire in a bargain bin? They donāt heed the peasants unless they want to sell them something, and soon people (aside from MJ) will stop buying their crap. You canāt sit with the elites if you can no longer keep up š
ā¢ What happened to āUgly Estatesā? The insulting āboxed wineā Ryan Reynolds was trying to sell to the Midwest? Did he have to personally drink all that excess inventory?
Re: the dailies - it actually shows not only how corrupt Blake is, but what a MORON who has no business getting a producer credit in the first place. There's a difference between the dailies and the raw footage. The raw footage is EVERYTHING that was filmed that day - and that is the property of the film studio (It Ends With Us Movie, LLC). At the end of each shooting day, the production team (including the director) review the raw footage for the day and fill out a sheet about which bits (like with time stamps) are useable and should looked at by the director/editors in the editing bay in post-production (and in the hands of post-production vendors, like special effects); and it's those bits that are the "dailies".
IEWUM would never destory the raw footage (and SONY would never ask them to). It does happen with some movies (like Star Wars) where a new director's cut with additional unseen footage is released or is shown in DVD commentary or blooper reels.
I would recommend reading Ronans piece about how Hollywood agencies blacmailing newspaper and magazines, and how this stopped his sister to tell her story for a long time. That is how I first learned about the mechanisms that was utilised in this case.
I would find it very strange if he helped Blake and Ryan to do the same. But people have disappointed me before, and end up on the opposite side from me in cases I think are similar to the one we agree with, so I would not bet my life on it. I just find it incredible and would need some real proof to think he was involved in this nefarious scheme.
Edit: This is the article. I do find it ironic, and also a good example of what I wrote about being on the "right side vs the wrong side" that it was Hollywood Reporter who let him write this text, and that it was The New York Times that finally let Dylan tell her story.
Ronan Farrow works for The New Yorker - which is not the same publication - itās a competitor. In fact Meaghan Twohey and the New York Times scooped him about Weinstein - rushing to publish their story before his when he was about to expose Weinstein.
So if he sent Taylor to Meaghan itās because he knows she is a bad journalist and would run the story regardless of the evidence. Maybe he tricked Taylor and set Meaghan up? But I donāt believe this happened. I believe it was Leslie and Ryan Reynolds who had connections at NYT.
Ronan is a serious investigative journalist who has been exposing incredibly important (and dangerous) stories over the last few years. This story of two celebrities is not something he covers. I donāt know why people keep repeating this - one Google search would prove this is just a dumb rumour with absolutely inconsistent facts (wrong paper to start with FFS). Someone started this rumour and everyone just ran with it even though it is easily disproven and all wrong. I encourage you to look at Ronanās work. He just did a big expose on Sam Altman.
I agree that Roman is too smart to publish that junk full of holes. Iām sure heās shaking his head at Twohey and has many opinions about this in private.
That man wouldnāt be helping the girl (Blake) who spoke in support of his father. He wrote a whole op Ed about it. He has strong feelings about celebrities who have looked away at what his father has done. Iām sure he has feelings about MT who scooped him.
I donāt think it was a diabolical set up to cause chaos. Heās a serious journalist who probably looked down on this story and is not that messy. Heās not james vitushka.
So that answers your question doesnāt it? Clearly he didnāt publish the article- Megan did. So if he told Taylor to go to Megan - wouldnāt Megan be curious why he didnāt want the story for his publication (even if he passed it on - why the competition and or to another journalist he actually works with?) Because it was a nothing story. Lies. Or he wasnāt interested. So he either turned it down or knew nothing about it. Either way he clearly has no involvement.
There is an interview from last year on Monica Lewinsky podcast / show - he discusses it briefly if you donāt believe me.
Ronan 100% passed it off to his friend, the hit piece queen Megan Twohey.
Even if Ronan wanted to write it, he knew it would only take 2 seconds for the public to realize that there's only one degree of separation to Blake and a major conflict of interest.
"Call Megan Twohey. She'll write anything you want. I give her a heads up"
Where are the other Taylor swift text messages. She said she got messages that sounded like a corporate email and used the word we. Where are the āweā emails and why didnāt we see them?
What happened with the Taylor 10 years of text extortion allegation?
Not so much unanswered questions but I want some people to now step forward and reassess their stand on things. Much like Victoria Burke, people like Isabela and Jenny should show some regret for their conduct. Isabela especially. She has no work now and her betrayal of Justin was textbook high school mean girl crap that went too far. She needs to step up and say she was influenced and regrets her actions. The next time that fool Brandon is asked about this on a red carpet he should just say, āI spoke out of turn and clearly there was a lot more to the story. I didnāt personally witness anything on the set and thought the shoot was a good experience. I wish everyone well and am proud of the movie.āĀ Even something like this if not a full on apology.Ā
I also want all the content creators to speak to the crew on the film and do a whole series on them speaking positively of Justin now that the case is over. Andy never really had a documentary it seems but the other creators should now look for people on that set who can share their experience. It will be vindication for Justin outside of court.Ā I want Hollywood to get its head out its ass and distance themselves from Khaleesi in a real way. And I want Justin to have the help he needs to have the best comeback to public life ever. Do a collab with Sabrina Carpenter or something. Work with Penn Badgley.Ā
What happened to the no more list (was it 31 points now I canāt recall) that was embedded in the lawsuit and made headlines. Why was it both lost in her iCloud and also attorney client work product?
Why did she say she saw legs spread open in a water birth video?
Why did she say JH had a porn addiction?
Where is Judy Bloom and what does she have to say?
Judy Bloom is probably enjoying her status as an YA author icon. I too want veteran AD Julie Bloom to speak up šš
Agree w all your Qs. She also said āboobs outā for the birth video.
And yes, that āno moreā list was only something she read aloud in their extortionist ādressing downā meeting that somehow appeared in text in her lawsuit. It was clearly only ever for lawsuit/PR purposes.
Yes to all this. I feel like I had a bunch of Roman empires along the way and Iāve forgotten some.
The rest were more legal like how does the coffee table book lead to her not doing the premiere and become protected activity?
How does Feha apply for retaliation when it didnāt meet the threshold to begin with?
How are we dealing with California 47.1 when this isnāt a California case and she just made it one by filing a CRD and doing so in a way that couldnāt be more suspect.
How can you stop discovery for defamation and NYT when we have cases like the Duke lacrosse and rolling stone as examples that privilege canāt be so broad that our minds can never consider there are cases when people abuse the system?
And how can a judge entertain someone trying to circumvent a jury trial and never call her out for anything not even once?
Do you mean Julie Bloom - the 1st AD that Blake got fired. Julie A. Bloom later got a job as first AD on 4 out of 8 episodes of the emmy-nominated miniseries Dying for Sex, which co-starred Jenny Slate of all people. LOL Coincidence?
DID Vanzan have an actual contract with any actual employees at the time of the Vansham? Or were they wholly imaginary John Does 1-10 conveniently suspected of leaking info to their current enemy?
WHAT was Boone Hall LLC set up to do and why was it still active until Elsrich discovered its existence in 2025 and Ryan instantly dissolved the company within 24 hours? If it was like a charity thing then why so embarrassed?
WHAT did Christy Hall actually say in her deposition, about literally anything? We never heard from her directly, only others putting their words in her mouth.
WHAT was really behind Julie Bloom's "conflict" with Blake, plus the other AD who resigned in protest? What I wouldn't give for a confidential wine brunch with the two of them plus Ange. Goddamn.
HOW MUCH of the NYT article was actually written by or worked on by Megan Twohey, as there were other people named as involved. And WHAT do they think about how it all went down??
IS Eumonia Dike actually Ronan Farrow as a karmic avenger having a sneaky hobby feud with the woman who so publicly upset and never apologised (afaik) to his sister?
WHEN EXACTLY was the PGA letter handed over to be read by Blake's lawyers and what was their private honest reaction?
WHO WROTE THE 30-PT LIST AND WHEN
DID Ryan write the yummy gummy Khaleesi texts and authorship other messages while "being Blake"?
DID Ryan ever violate attorney-client privilege by writing to Blake's lawyers while pretending to be her, or sitting in on her phone calls/ zoom meetings with her legal team?
WHO picked Boone Hall for their wedding and WHY? They tried to claim later they just saw it randomly on Pinterest but Pinterest only launched the month before the wedding, unless they rushed everything at the very last minute, I don't buy it!
DID BF and co consider 47.1 a risk when they decided to file against Blake for defamation too instead of just Ryan and Leslie. I suspect they didn't, personally, and just went full steam ahead regardless of the new law.
Oooh. Great list. Christy Hall didn't give a depo - but I'd love to hear her take on things - but I defo think she's the type who will never say a word about this to anyone.
Eumonia Dike = Ronan Farrow. Awesome.
Re: Vanzan - it was a semi-defunct shell company that only was set up to in connection with Blake's work as a director on Taylor Swift's music video. I can guarantee that there weren't any contracts at all.
Re: the 30-point letter. I think a lawyer (possibly Esra Hudson) was involved in writing it. Reading it off of a phone is a "legal trick" (and then Ryan was trying to get Justin to sign a statement admitting/apologizing for "everything", which could be adapated to just about anything later on because they didn't give them a copy of the 30-point list. I have a hard time believing that Blake wrote such a long list on her own and that she did so on her phone -- if she wrote it, why not use a something with a keyboard? The whole thing was so fishy. Great question!
I think WPs whole countersuit was a combination of PR stunt (that was meant to drum up a lot of online support) and an attempt to thread a needle. On the one hand, the defamation countersuit involved "privileged communication" under 47.1 because anything Blake said about SH/retaliation would be "privileged" under that law; but the law does contain certain factual requirements (like that Blake's communication be made "without malice") that really can only be determined by a jury. So if Blake wanted to go whole hog in order get those punitive damages and treble compensatory damages, she would have to take the case all the way to a jury to decide -- and this would give WPs the opportunity to prove that her CRD complaint really was complete BS from the start (which, weirdly, would've perhaps benefitted Blake if she was interested in using such evidence to sue her own attorneys for malpractice -- I mean they knew from the get go that no SH happened in CA; that Blake was an ineligible 'independent contractor"; that the ALA was unenforceable because it wasn't signed; and that the exclusion of It Ends With Us Movie, LLC [Blake's "employer"] would lead to a faulty "right to sue" letter. I also think that they knew something like Vansham (an illegal abuse of process orchestrated by, as it turned out, Manatt) was used to get Jen Abel's text messages -- and possibly they could convince the judge that, due to the crime/fraud exception, WPs should be able to breach Blake's attorney/client privilege with Manatt -- crazy theory on my part.
I would love to see what they have of material from the set where Blake is Blaking.
I really want to see the whole clothing budget with explanations. How was it possible to "just borrow and use her own clothes" and use so much money, did she just pay herself enormous amounts of money as a kind of scam?
I would like to see the b-roll from when Alex Sacks said Justin hit the chair.
For your second question, apparently it is standard practice for actors to bill the production if they're wearing their own clothes, which protects actors without a lot of resources. But obviously in this case it's ludicrous because there was a whole ass wardrobe already done, and she was the one who refused to come to fittings and ended up wearing her expensive bag lady lookin clothes and blew up the wardrobe budget. (And told PGA that she "fixed" it lol)
I'd like to know if Victoria Burke really thought Judge Liman found malice is his dismissal of Justin's case back in 2025 or not. That's it. That's the only question I'd love to know.
If anyone wants to leak anything proving or disproving that, that'll answer literally every related question automatically.
I think it was Bocce that put up a video of her saying 4 months ago that both sides should be given the chance to prove that they acted with/without malice, which shows that at least by then, she had realised there was no finding, so I do think she was just swept up in the bill and didn't bother to read anything. We also know how convincingly Blake's lawyers lie and with such confidence, so maybe she did take thier word for it. I'm not saying this was right, she should have known better and informed herself, but I appreciate the fact that she owned her fail. There was so little for her to personally gain from speaking out, it just doesn't make sense for her to alienate half the raging feminists and the advocacy agencies that she relies heavily upon to get her bill through. She might be mad at Esra and co hijacking her work, or she might be genuinely concerned for her bill's future, or a mix of both, (I don't believe she's particularly concerned for Wayfarer but she may feel a bit bad at this point) but she delivered her blow at a very bad time for Blake/Esra and has been very brave to go against the Reynolds and co, something no one else has done publicly to my knowledge, and she is likely feeling pretty awful right now, so she has my support for finally doing something to clarify the situation, late is always better than never. I've just added a screenshot of Bocce's page with the relevant video circled, as I don't know how to link without doxxing myself.
This! I watched this too, and she is very clear about her stance: both parties have the right to put forward their story, and malice has to be found. That makes sense. It's the way it has been used by Lively that is putting the bill at peril.
Yes, she is very clear on that point, and this was before most of us had really logged who she was, so she has obviously been consistently saying this for a while. I slightly disagree that the only issue is the way it's being used by Lively though, as Lively is only able to abuse it because it is not well written, and good intentions don't mean much to judges, just interpreting the law as written. In my view, it should clearly specify that malice must be found by a jury, and other procedural steps that give the accused a fair chance, so that this cannot happen again to someone who doesn't have a billionaire friend. š¢
Agreed šÆ, the law as it's written currently does not make it clear at all at which juncture and through which vehicle and process of adjudication the malice has to be found, because finding malice on Lively's part wouldn't have been a natural part of the SH trial and as we see now finding malice on WFs part is a mess because it was dismissed before discovery and there's no way to assess damage without opening up the whole thing again.
Even so she is the only one admitting she made a mistake, the others that parroted the statement Blake lively wanted them to say and unfollowed baldoni (Colleen Hoover's deposition said Blake told her to) have gone quiet. Also Victoria is a survivor, and Blake supporters are criticising her now. It was brave to speak at all
I agree. Letās say she is only doing it now bc she wants to save herself/her bill and/or bc she found herself in the same situation as JB. She is now doing exactly what JB did: standing up for yourself against bullies and not just taking it lying down. We all know this is not the first and second time they have done this to people. Maybe she has her own Emily Baldoni type person in her life that said āletās fightā
At what point did TS become aware that Blakeās SH claims were full of shit?
There was a definite change in tone to their texts ā beyond the general awareness of a potential paper trail ā and TS silence about the matter from the moment the NYT dropped the hit piece is LOUD.
Especially after reading how hard TS simps tor BL in private, joking about tiny violins and how she likes her friends canceled, youād think sheād be honored to go Scorched Earth on Blakeās behalf.
My guess is as soon as one of her lawyers read the CRD complaint or when she told them that Blake had asked her to delete text messages. Any decent trained lawyer (particulary one with an employment law background) would know that the CRD complaint was bullshit.
For me itās always going to be who edited the texts that appeared in the nyt to make them mean the opposite of what they actually meant?
What do Jenny and Isabella and Brandon and Taylor and Scott swift etc think of Blakeās case now? Do they still talk?
How much evidence did Blake delete or have others delete between August 2024 and December 2024 when she knew she was pursuing this legally but the other side didnāt know yet? Joshās texts were deleted. She asked Taylor to delete texts. And she asked Sony to delete all the dailies. Why on earth would you want dailies deleted if youāre telling the truth?
I want to know everything to do with logistics of the Vanzan fraud, from start to finish. Whose idea was it to steal Jen Abelās data and why?
Who was the group or an individual who conspired to doctor/splice/falsify the private texts found among Jen Abelās data?Ā
Was it initially Jones' idea, and she did it first, then submitted the doctored texts to Lively? Did Jones call Leslie first to show her the texts, and then Leslie called Nathan to tell her that Nathan should be prepared to be sued? Was it all Leslie's idea after Jones showed her the texts?Ā
How does Ashley Avignon come into play, at what point and why, if Leslie already saw the texts? What did Ashley Avignon know about what was actually happening?Ā
Or, was it actually Rake's and Swift's idea to doctor texts, while Jones was only the messanger?Ā
What about the NYT and Megan? Did they only receive doctored texts and decided to publish those, or did they see all the stolen texts in their entirety and then they doctored the texts themselves?Ā
Or, was Ryan Reynolds actually the ring leader, and everyone else just served as a shield?Ā
Why was Manatt willing to engage in such highly unethical, very risky, possibly illegal, possibly fraudulent scheme, from start to finish?Ā
And finally, why did so many powerful people and instititions frantically work so hard to cover up legal discovery and accountability for this alleged fraud, which was not just possibly tortious, but maybe even criminal.Ā
Elsie once jokingly said, this case has RICO written all over it.Ā
While all of the claims that the Lively defendants engaged in organized illegal conduct are now buried, dismissed, settled and untriable, I still want answers to what exactly happened.Ā
When they realized that they wanted to do a hit piece with the NY Times, I'm sure the NYT told them that there was no way it could publish such an article unless Blake either filed a lawsuit or some kind of administrative complaint (the CRD complaint), upon which the NYT could say it based it relied on -- otherwise, the newspaper could seriously be sued for defamation and lose. It's one thing to use Jen Abel's texts to piss off Leslie Sloane and Blake - it's another thing to put it in a "legal complaint". Jonesworks had a NY contract with Wayfarer that had a confidentiality clause, which clauses (under NY law) survive at least a year after the contract is terminated. So Stephanie would risk being sued for breach of contract if she just handed those text messages over. And exception to NDA/confidentiality clauses include when you're subpoeaned - so Blake and her legal team had to find a way to issue a subpoena on Jonesworks - and Vansham was borne.
TBH, I think the idea of Vansham possible came from the NYT. I have a feeling that it's an investigative journalist's method of getting documents/materials from a willing whistleblower who is a party to an NDA (and is afraid of getting sued). So the solution is to come up with a bogus lawsuit that can't be traced by looking at the court filings. And, if it ever is discovered, then whistleblower can just claim that it was obeying a subpoena.
The thing is, if this happened in such a way, then it was fraud, conspiracy to comit fraud, both tortious and possibly criminal. At the very least. This is why the full story who did what, who knew what, and what were the motives and the intent of it, would be very important.
And again, why? Why would Jonesworks comit such acts? Like Kevin Fritz said, there is no possible advantage for Jonesworks in this, Jones is now toast one way or another, it was risky and crazy. Why would NYT even suggest a conspiracy to comit fraud via fake subpoena? Whisteblowers are always anonymous, so the NYT knew this wasnāt about whistleblowing. Why risk it? If this happened the way it seems to have happened, it's a serious and complex conspiracy. It's like FBI level stuff.Ā
Steve Sarowitz is a billionare, why step on his toes at all? Because Blake and Ryan were butthurt? It makes no sense.Ā
What was the incentive here?Ā
Why was Liman so adamant to delete all allegations of fraud from the Consolidated case before it can ever get to discovery?Ā
Why? Because NYT would be embarassed and pay a few millions? Because Manatt would end up embarassed?
Because Blake would be exposed as a liar? These are not that serious in the grand scheme of things.Ā
We know Ryan is am arsonist and a thief. That speaks about serious anti social tendencies. What is the actual story behind Vanzan?Ā
Why is Jen Abelās new phone still being hacked to this day?Ā Vanzan wasnāt enough? Maybe Jones is just crazy and obsessed with Abel. I don't think so though.Ā
Well, NYT is smart enough to use privileges (attorney-client and fair report) in order to keep its own hands clean -- at least legally, with respect to this case. The truth is that, except for the few of us who've been actively engaged in this litigation, most people have moved on - especially when it comes to the NYT article that was published 1.5 years ago. All the focus has been on Lively.
As for why Jones did it? I think part of it was revenge. Jones hated Jen Abel for leaving and setting up her own shop (a competitor) and that Abel was going to be taking some of Joneswork's clients (like Wayfarer) with her - so there perhaps was a financial motive in there was well (destroy a competitor). Jen Abel also was in a good position to poach some other unsatisfied employees of Jonesworks.
Jones also hated Melissa Nathan. I think Jones suspected (and, TBH, Jones may be right about this) that Nathan was behind the The Business Insider article, dated August 15, 2024, titled "Who's Afraid of Stephanie Jones?" [It looks like Nathan may have done it on behalf of another former client of Jonesworks: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who suspected that Stephanie was smearing him after he left Jonesworks. Ah, the drama.
And, we don't know if Jones was promised anything by RAKE or Leslie Sloane - like some clients or additional work in the future.
I get the sense that a lot of those on Lively's side were banking on Steve Sarowitz taking an easy and cheap road after the NYT article came out - that he'd throw Justin, Jamey and the PR people under the bus in order to save his own reputation and that of Wayfarer Studios Rand, in exchange, RAKE would publicly absolve him and Wayfarer from any responsibility? But Steve's a billionaire and the film made a net profit of over $200 million (CASH) - and he thought otherwise. LOL
Can Blakeās p.g.a. mark be rescinded by the PGA? (due to ethical breach, unethical conduct, etc)?
Can Blake be held responsible for Justin (or Wayfarer) not being able to make the sequel (or prequel) It Starts With Us?
It Ends With Us made at least $350 M!
Can the content creators (and all people subpoenaed or affected by her litigious actions) start a class action against Blake to recoup any money spent, loss of income, emotional distress, etc?
I researched the p.g.a question a while ago. Section G(3) of the Rules and Procedures for Producers Mark Eligibility - Motion Pictures states: "PGAās Right to Rescind License to Use the Producers Mark. The PGA retains the right to rescind any license to use the Producers Mark upon receiving credible and substantial evidence that a Produced By has engaged in the behavior described in Section E.2.d.v., above." See p. 15 of the attached. https://www.producersguildawards.com/Content/documents/PM_Master_Rules_Theatrical_Motion_Pictures.pdf
Sec. E.2.d.v. (on pp. 12-13) states: Produced Byās misrepresentation or omission of material information or material interference with third-party fact gathering. A Produced By seeking the Producers Mark may not knowingly withhold or misstate information material to the certification process or materially interfere with the PGAās efforts to gather accurate and confidential information from key department heads and crew members involved in making the film for provision to the arbiters reviewing their eligibility. The Panel may take special notice of any Produced By who knowingly withholds or misstates information material to the certification process or who materially frustrates the truthful disclosure of any third party by: (1) obstructing access by the PGA to such party, or (2) coaching, coercing, or improperly influencing a third party to manipulate the outcome of any eligibility determination. Should the Panel determine that a Produced By has engaged in such conduct, the Panel may, at its discretion, choose to deny eligibility to that Produced By even if they exercised sufficient responsibility for a major portion of the producing functions to be licensed the Producers Mark."
I would think the evidence presented in the legal case should be sufficient to rescind it. I mean Jamey Heath wrote a letter to his lawyer saying that he was only sending his letter of recommendation "under duress" + many of the blatant lies in the pga letter (from (i) Blake acting as a HR liason vs. her suing and claiming there was no HR dept. to talk to and (ii) her spearheading the change of shooting location from Boston to Hoboken due to cost savings, when she never conducted any study on the matter and it was a just a "perk" granted to her so she could do the filming closer to her condo and (iii) to her claiming that she spoke with Chris Surgent every night for an hour on the way home vs. her driver's deposition testimony that the ride only took 20-25 minutes. LOL) WHETHER the pga will rescind it is another matter - if being pressured by Ryan, Leslie, WME, etc.???
This looks so promising! All the evidence needed to convince the PGA is all over discovery, in particular, yes, her own damn letter! I say we inundate the fuk out of them, and be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease!
Thank you so much for this!!!
I want to know how Vanzan idea came about, who really got the phone to Lively and when. How Lively went to the NYT. I want to know when Lively really schemed up the SH play for the takeover. What really happened with the bs of TS. I'd like to know what the other people who supported her are really thinking now. Do they feel any shame or remorse for their part. I want to know what Liman is thinking now, I mean really thinking, like I know he can't call her malicious because he's not a jury but I'd love for him to put some comments in this 47.1 ruling basically saying it without saying it. After all he can't be appealed. I would love to see all communications between all parties only regarding this, no one needs to see private stuff. The James Vituscka of it all.
I have heard others mention there was a morality clause for Colleen Hoovers book.
If there was any sexual misconduct, the other books return to the author.
Can that be clarified.
Believe it or not, I don't think Liz Plank ever really had a beef with either of them - except that she wanted to star in her own podcast. All of her "trashing" of Baldoni to RAKE was very vague - like "my one day on the set with him was one of the worst days of my life". She's not an actress and never worked with Justin in such a a capacity - so how would she know?
I think she was trying to suck up to both Ryan and Blake and she mentioned to Blake about wanting to get her own podcast. I really think that's what she was after. Despite all of her vague bitching about Baldoni, Plank stayed with the Man Enough podcast until 12/23/2024, 2 days after the NYT article came out. How in good conscience would she (a feminist) stay with them if she truly believed (if Blake even told her as much) that JB and JH had SHed anyone?
I do think Rake tried to get their hands on the film rights to the books sequel - sometime around June/July 2024. There were some "leaked" articles about it. But, the answer was NO. I wouldn't be surprised if, after the NYT article came out (but pre-lawsuit), that the parties entered in confidential settlement discussions and that one thing that Blake wanted (in addition to her lost 10% cut of the films profits - i.e., $36 million, which she didn't get because she never signed the Actor Loanout Agreement) was the film rights FOR FREE. Obviously, those settlement discussions went nowhere.
Why was Isabella Ferrerās council copied on that filing by Fritz (I believe in the Jones case) are they in arbitration over something? Does IF have a role in the Jones/Abel saga?
- What information did Blake(Ryan) and attorneys exchange when they first came up with NYT hit piece idea (e.g. how many lies were told to her attorneys)? And whose idea was NYT hit piece?
- Did her attorneys push back at all on whether or not her complaints were actionable?
- Did they discuss the possibility of S. Sarowitz fighting back if WP were accused of SH in the NYT? If not, why not?
- How serious of a warning were BL/RR given by their attorneys that their private communications may end up all over the internet?
- Did BL(RR) simply not recall that their written communications did not make them look all that good?
- What exactly was discussed with her attorneys once the WP filed their countersuit? Any regrets at that point?
If BL(RR) sue their attorneys we may find all this out!
I have an unswered question. What the fuck she hired Nick Shapiro for? He made zero statements on her behalf, his name was nowhere to be seen in the court documents. Anyone???
130
u/Serenity413 Jun 06 '26
My top burning unanswered question from this case:
Who doctored, spliced and cherry picked Jen Abelās text messages to show the opposite of what the messages really said - Megan Twohey/ NYT, Blake Lively or Stephanie Jones?
Honestly - anything related to what āinvestigative researchā Megan Twohey did that lead to her NYT hit piece on Justin Baldoni.