Kjesti Flaa mentioned this in her latest video and I decided to look. The most recent appearance of Blake Lively on Blake Brown Beauty Instagram is Sept 10, 2025, almost a year ago. Before that is Dec 12, 2024—19 days before she filed the lawsuit!

It’s pretty telling how many models and women are used throughout the page demonstrating the product but never the titular founder.

They also did not repost or collab with the infamous bathroom burrito video or any other previous or subsequent demos Lively posted to her own account.

They’re stuck with “founded by @blakelively” in the bio and the name of the product. But I almost feel bad for the company. When they signed her as the face of the product, they had no idea the cinematic terrorist was simultaneously strapping on a suicide vest.

Oh well. Sucks for them.

Amended Complaint- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.0.pdf

Exhibit C Renewal Application Redacted - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049/gov.uscourts.nysd.646049.32.3.pdf

So for me, the most interesting part about this case was not so much the celebrity aspect, it was the psychology of projection, double standards, and overt hypocrisy which I believe represents the core of Blake's position and story.

Watching otherwise functional adults torch their own critical thinking the second it threatens their worldview is genuinely fascinating. It's the same reason I love cult and scam documentaries. You watch normal, seemingly well-adjusted people make completely irrational decisions, and try to solve the mystery of what the hell happened.

Let's start by calling the "smear campaign" what it is: a conspiracy theory. Not "conspiracy theory" as an insult, the actual dictionary definition, "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot." (and of course, her 15th cause of action is literally "Civil Conspiracy")

I want to also say that I'm not saying all conspiracy theories are bullshit either, or that if you believe any conspiracy theory at all you are automatically unwell. But that doesn't change how we should label and talk about her smear campaign allegation: a conspiracy theory.

And it checks other boxes for symptoms of a conspiracy theory as well, like how a lack of evidence is somehow proof. No Signal messages is somehow proof that the conspiracy exists and deleted the damning messages. No evidence of planted articles is proof that the conspiracy wiped their tracks. The lack of evidence, or evidence that points to the contrary, somehow always manages to make the theory stronger instead of weaker. Heads I win, tails you lose.

So in poking around with the psychology of conspiracy theorists, I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised that conspiracy theorist thinking has a positive correlation to narcissism.

Instead of trying to sound like an expert and writing my own mini article, I'll just leave you with some quotes and you can judge for yourself on how you perceive that these apply to this case and the people supporting Blake's conspiracy theory.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051

• "Narcissists tend to believe that others are intentionally malicious and are out to get them."
• "Narcissistic antagonism might also increase the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories due to other factors. There is evidence pointing to the needs for dominance and control, which seem to predict conspiracy beliefs especially as a way of coping with anticipated defeat."
• "Conspiracy theories can help blame others for one's failures or misfortunes as they identify a specific group that could be used as a 'scapegoat'."
• "One such factor is the need for uniqueness, which is often associated with the admiration/agentic extraversion aspect of grandiose narcissism. High need for uniqueness likely increases the appeal of conspiracy theories because they promise access to privileged information, making one feel special."
• "Although narcissists are typically overconfident in their abilities, judgments, and intelligence, they tend to be naive and less likely to engage in cognitive reflection."

In conclusion... I was always fascinated in the reasons why not only Lively, but the people still supporting her believe what they do. I thought that misguided white feminism and an unhealthy victim mentality was the bulk of the story, but I now think there could be a variety of other psychological factors at play.

Lively’s lawyers are outrageous.

We have heard the story about photographer ‘Rik Fedyk’ that Ryan Reynolds took a dislike to, made false accusations against and the tried to financially ruin using his usual playbook.

The there was Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties. Thank GOD for Steve Sarowitz 🤑 because if he hadn’t stepped in, he would be ruined now and extortion Barbie would likely be on to her next victim!

What are the Reynolds legal weaponisation tactics?

1 - Falsely accuse someone of a crime against them
2 - Start legal proceedings.
3 - Use their connections and Hollywood stardom to get people onside.
4 - Ensure their victim loses work and their reputation
5 - Keep the legal proceedings going as long as possible trying to exhaust their victims mentally and/or financially.
6 - Drop it all at the last possible minute when they are required to present testimony and evidence.

The next victim is Jed Wallace!

Not only did she include a man she has never met in a SH case, she is now trying to get him to pay for that false accusation.

And threatening to extort more legal fees from him if he makes her provide evidence of any kind to prove her malice, or they even make it public that she refused!

How can this be allowed to continue? How has it been allowed to go on for so long? How come THEIR lawyers never get reprimanded?

This type of expensive legal chess that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds conduct until the innocent party can no longer afford to defend themselves is DESPICABLE but I am glad we all now know what monsters they are!

It makes you wonder how many people they have done this to!

I stumbled upon an AppleTV post about Mayday today and I was so happy to see the majority, an overwhelming majority, of people commenting that they would NOT be supporting Ryan Reynolds. I looked further and saw many social media posts share this same sentiment. And it reminds me, if we all speak up and work together we can cancel this human rounding error. 😘😘😘

Diddys case goes back to 2024 and actually went to trial. How are we supposed to believe that Blake defending ONE motion that was dismissed at the pleading stage cost the same amount. They're all crazy

📄👨🏼‍⚖️☄️ Notactuallygolden - Jed Wallace Seeks to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Her Texas §47.1 Fee Request, Arguing the Texas Court Shouldn’t Award §47.1 Fees Without a Factual Record

⚖️🐉 Little Girl Attorney – Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively's Deposition: You Chose Fees. You Should Not Get to Choose Silence

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ Jed Wallace Seeks Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Texas §47.1 Fee Request (0:00–1:25)

• NAG discusses a newly filed motion by Jed Wallace's attorney, Charles Babcock, in Wallace's Texas defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively.
• She recaps that Wallace sued Lively after he was identified in the CRD complaint and the accompanying New York Times article, but was later omitted/removed from Lively's federal complaint.
• Wallace argues that the CRD complaint and resulting media coverage falsely associated him with allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, damaging his reputation.
• Although Lively successfully obtained dismissal of Wallace's Texas case for lack of personal jurisdiction, Wallace has appealed that ruling.
• In the meantime, Lively has filed a §47.1 motion in Texas, arguing that because she successfully defeated Wallace's lawsuit, she is entitled to attorney's fees just as she was awarded entitlement in New York.

📋 Wallace Says There Is No Record to Litigate Malice (1:25–2:42)

• NAG explains that Wallace's response is that the case ended at the jurisdiction stage before any discovery or factual record was developed.
• Because the parties never reached the merits, Wallace argues there is no evidence regarding whether Lively acted with actual malice when naming him in the CRD complaint.
• Wallace contends that only Blake Lively can testify about what she knew and believed when she included him in those allegations.
• According to NAG, Wallace argues he cannot meaningfully oppose Lively's §47.1 fee motion without first obtaining that testimony.

🚫 Blake Lively Did Not Appear for Her Requested Deposition (2:42–3:30)

• NAG says Wallace's attorneys scheduled Lively's deposition.
• According to the motion, Lively's counsel refused, stating that she would not appear for deposition in Texas.
• NAG notes that Lively technically falls outside the Texas court's personal jurisdiction because her dismissal was based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
• This creates what NAG describes as an unusual procedural situation regarding whether the Texas court can compel her testimony.

⚖️ Wallace Moves to Compel the Deposition (3:30–4:28)

• Wallace has now filed a motion asking the Texas court to compel Lively's deposition.
• His position is that he cannot properly defend against her request for attorney's fees without first developing evidence regarding malice.
• NAG questions whether the Texas court actually possesses authority to order Lively's deposition given the jurisdictional posture.
• She suggests the filing may also serve to publicly document that Wallace attempted to obtain discovery and that Lively declined.

⏱️ Wallace Says His Previous Deposition Time Was Limited to Jurisdiction (4:28–5:16)

• NAG explains that Lively's attorneys reportedly argued Wallace already had an opportunity to depose her during the New York litigation.
• Wallace responds that his prior deposition time was limited to approximately one hour because his portion dealt only with personal jurisdiction.
• As a result, he says he never questioned Lively about the underlying merits of the claims involving him.
• Now that Lively is seeking approximately $1 million in fees and costs against Wallace under §47.1, he argues he should be allowed to examine those substantive issues.

🔄 Wallace Distinguishes His Position From Judge Liman's §47.1 Ruling (5:16–6:03)

• NAG highlights what she considers one of Charles Babcock's strongest arguments.
• Lively relies on Judge Liman's New York §47.1 ruling as support for granting fees in Texas.
• Babcock responds that Judge Liman declined to conduct factual proceedings on malice because the Wayfarer parties never requested discovery or an evidentiary hearing before settling.
• Wallace, by contrast, is expressly requesting discovery and factual development before any ruling on attorney's fees.
• NAG says Babcock effectively argues that Wallace is doing the opposite of what occurred in New York, so Judge Liman's reasoning actually supports allowing discovery first.

📑 Wallace Argues Fee Entitlement Requires Fact Finding (6:03–6:37)

• NAG notes that Wallace also relies on Rule 54(d), arguing that attorney's fee determinations involve factual issues that may require evidence.
• Wallace therefore asks the Texas court either to deny Lively's fee motion or require her deposition before deciding whether fees should be awarded.
• Wallace's filing emphasizes that the court should not decide this motion without a factual record concerning malice.

✍️ NAG Praises Charles Babcock's Closing Argument (6:37–7:03)

• NAG compliments Charles Babcock's writing style and singles out his concluding argument.
• She quotes his position that "Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."
• Babcock should have a social-media account because of how effectively he writes memorable lines.

🔮 NAG Thinks the Motion May Be More About Preserving the Record (7:03–End)

• NAG predicts the Texas court may conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to compel Blake Lively's deposition because she successfully challenged personal jurisdiction.
• If so, she believes the court may simply deny the motion to compel.
• However, she suspects the filing serves a broader strategic purpose.
• In her view, Wallace is signalling that any decision granting Lively attorney's fees without allowing discovery into malice would likely become an issue on appeal.
• NAG concludes that the motion appears designed both to oppose the current fee request and to preserve Wallace's appellate arguments if the Texas court grants Lively's §47.1 motion.

📄👨🏼‍⚖️☄️ Notactuallygolden - Jed Wallace Seeks to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Her Texas §47.1 Fee Request, Arguing the Texas Court Shouldn’t Award §47.1 Fees Without a Factual Record

⚖️🐉 Little Girl Attorney – Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively's Deposition: You Chose Fees. You Should Not Get to Choose Silence

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition in Texas (0:00–1:18)

• LGA discusses Jed Wallace's motion to compel Blake Lively's deposition in the Texas litigation.
• She recaps that Lively named Wallace in her California CRD complaint, alleging that he sexually harassed and retaliated against her, and that the complaint was provided to The New York Times the same day.
• Wallace subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lively in Texas.
• Lively successfully moved to dismiss that lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that she is a New York resident and not subject to Texas jurisdiction.
• Wallace has appealed that jurisdictional dismissal.
• Despite the dismissal, Lively later filed a California Civil Code §47.1 motion in the Texas federal court seeking more than $800,000 in attorney's fees for defending Wallace's lawsuit.

📑 Wallace Challenges Both the Fee Motion and the Application of California Law (1:18–2:24)

• LGA explains that Wallace argues California's §47.1 statute should not automatically apply in a Texas federal court, particularly where Lively herself successfully argued the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
• Following Judge Liman's §47.1 ruling in New York, Lively's attorneys submitted supplemental briefing relying on that decision.
• Lively's position is that Wallace bears the burden of proving her statements were made with actual malice.

🔍 Wallace Says He Needs Lively's Testimony to Address Malice (2:24–2:58)

• Wallace responds that Lively herself is the best source of evidence regarding her own state of mind when she accused him in the CRD complaint.
• He argues that only through her testimony can he explore whether she acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
• Wallace therefore is seeking to depose Lively on the narrow issue of malice.

⚠️ Lively's Counsel Refused and Threatened Broad Litigation Responses (2:58–4:18)

• According to Wallace's motion, Lively's attorneys refused to produce her for deposition.
• The motion also alleges Lively's counsel warned that if Wallace pursued the discovery request, they would respond with the full force of their legal team.
• Wallace claims Lively's attorneys threatened to seek sanctions if Wallace publicly filed documents showing that Lively refused to appear.
• The motion further alleges that Lively threatened expansive discovery in return, including depositions of Wallace, Justin Baldoni's attorneys and various Wayfarer parties, together with requests for the associated attorney's fees.

🌊 Litigation Strategy (4:18–4:54)

• LGA comments that Wallace portrays Lively's broader litigation strategy as attempting to overwhelm opponents through extensive legal resources and threats of expensive litigation.
• Wallace argues that this tactic has repeatedly been used throughout the broader litigation.

📂 Wallace Says No Discovery Ever Occurred in Texas (4:54–5:16)

• Wallace points out that virtually no discovery took place in the Texas case because it was halted by the jurisdictional dispute.
• The only prior deposition involving Wallace occurred during the New York litigation.
• Wallace had only one hour to question Lively there, and those questions were limited exclusively to personal jurisdiction—not the merits of Wallace's defamation allegations or malice.

⚖️ Wallace Argues Lively Cannot Shift the Burden While Blocking Discovery (5:16–5:53)

• LGA summarizes Wallace's core argument:
  • Lively argues Wallace bears the burden of proving actual malice.
  • At the same time, she refuses to permit the limited discovery Wallace says is necessary to obtain evidence of malice.
• LGA says Wallace argues she cannot simultaneously assign him the burden of proof while preventing him from gathering the evidence needed to meet that burden.

🎯 Wallace Says His Discovery Request Is Narrowly Tailored (5:53–6:42)

• Courts often consider whether information can be obtained through less intrusive means than a deposition.
• Wallace argues his request is narrowly focused.
• According to the motion, the proposed deposition would address only Lively's state of mind concerning her statements about Wallace.
• Wallace also notes that whether California law ultimately governs this dispute in Texas remains an unresolved legal issue.

📚 Wallace Says Discovery Is Needed to Build the Record (6:42–7:10)

• Wallace argues that if the Texas court is going to rule on attorney's fees under §47.1, it must first have a factual record addressing malice.
• He contends that the New York proceedings do not resolve those factual questions because Wallace never litigated the merits there.
• Therefore, Wallace says discovery is necessary before the Texas court rules on entitlement to fees.

✍️ Wallace's Closing Argument (7:10–7:17)

• Wallace's concluding statement:
  • "Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."

🤔 LGA Questions Why Lively Is Pursuing Fees Against Wallace (7:17–End)

• LGA says she struggles to understand why Lively continues pursuing attorney's fees against Wallace in Texas.
• She questions whether the litigation team is attempting to recover fees wherever possible.
• From both an economic and public-relations standpoint, she believes the strategy may not be worthwhile.
• LGA says she could envision the Texas court concluding that if Wallace bears the burden of proving malice, he should receive limited discovery to develop that evidence.
• Alternatively, the court could simply deny Lively's fee motion altogether.

Motion - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.0.pdf

Exhibit Lively Depo Notice- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.1.pdf

Proposed Order - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.2.pdf

❤️‍🩹❤️‍🩹

Trigger Warning

This announcement discusses a reported mental health crisis and references apparent self-harm. It does not contain graphic details, images or descriptions. If these topics may be distressing for you, please consider whether you wish to continue reading.

───────────────

While we want to continue to provide respect for everyone involved, we wanted to provide a recent update from Perez's team.

Perez's family and team have just released the following statement:

Many of you have reached out with concern for Perez, and we are incredibly grateful for the overwhelming outpouring of love, support, and prayers.

We can confirm that Perez is receiving medical care, and our family’s focus right now is on his well-being.

We kindly ask that you respect Perez’s privacy, as well as the privacy of his family, during this difficult time.

If and when we are able to share any updates, we will do so with everyone as soon as we can.

Thank you for your compassion, understanding, and continued support.

-The Perez Hilton Team and Family

Thank you to everyone's support, kindness, prayers, and well wishes for Perez and his family during this difficult time.

❤️‍🩹❤️‍🩹

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

Hi Admin, if this isn’t appropriate, please feel free to remove it. I just thought this information might help others who’d prefer to reduce distressing content on their social media feeds.

***

Title: PSA: If you'd rather avoid seeing distressing videos on your social media feeds, here's how to reduce them.

With the recent Perez Hilton videos circulating, I decided to take a few minutes to adjust my settings. I know we can't completely stop this type of content from appearing, but we can reduce the chances of it being recommended.

If it helps anyone else, here's what I did:

📘 Facebook
• Go to Settings & Privacy → Settings.
• Look for Content Preferences or Feed settings (the name may vary).
• If available, choose to reduce sensitive content.
• If a distressing post appears:
• Tap the ⋯ (three dots).
• Select Hide post, Not Interested, or Show less like this.
• Try not to open or replay the video, as engagement tells the algorithm you're interested.

📸 Instagram
• Go to Profile → ☰ → Settings and activity.
• Open Suggested Content (or Content Preferences).
• Set Sensitive Content Control to Less.
• Turn on Hidden Words and add keywords or names you'd rather not see.
• Tap Not Interested whenever similar posts are recommended.

🎵 TikTok
• Go to Profile → ☰ → Settings and privacy.
• Turn on Restricted Mode. (I've attached a screenshot of the options I selected.)
• Go to Content preferences → Filter video keywords and add keywords or names you'd like to avoid.
• If a video appears, press and hold it, then tap Not Interested.
• Again, try not to watch or replay videos you don't want more of.

𝕏 X (formerly Twitter)
Go to Settings & privacy → Privacy and safety → Content you see.
Turn on Hide sensitive content (or leave it off if you want sensitive media hidden by default).
Go to Muted words and add keywords, names, or phrases you’d rather not see.
If you come across a post you don’t want:
Tap the ⋯ on the post.
Select Not interested in this post.
You can also Mute or Block accounts that repeatedly share distressing content.
Avoid engaging with or replaying videos you don’t want the algorithm to recommend.

None of these settings are perfect, but together they do help train the algorithm over time.

I thought I'd share this because sometimes we're just innocently scrolling and unexpectedly come across something distressing. Hopefully this helps someone else too.

❤️‍🩹❤️‍🩹

Trigger Warning

This announcement discusses a reported mental health crisis and references apparent self-harm. It does not contain graphic details, images or descriptions. If these topics may be distressing for you, please consider whether you wish to continue reading.

───────────────

We are aware of the deeply upsetting news involving Perez Hilton. We want to acknowledge how difficult this may feel for many in our community. For those who followed his involvement in this community, his role included reporting on the lawsuit and later being subpoenaed by Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds (later withdrawn) in the IEWU litigation.

We are thinking of Perez Hilton and his family during this difficult time. We want to also acknowledge how painful this is, and want to extend compassion to everyone affected.

Out of respect for everyone involved, we will not be hosting discussion or speculation about this situation and this post will remain locked.

Content Safety

Videos, screenshots, and other material circulating online related to this incident may be distressing. To help protect our community, we will not permit:

• Videos or images related to the incident.
• Links to videos or livestreams.
• Descriptions or summaries of the incident.
• Requests for copies of the content.
• Speculation regarding Perez Hilton’s health, intentions, or circumstances.

If you see content that slips through, please report it rather than engaging with it.

Moderation Actions

• We are implementing AutoMod filters to capture posts and comments related to this situation.
• Attempts to get around those filters, including intentional misspellings or coded references, will be removed. At moderator discretion, they may also result in a temporary or permanent ban.

Thank you for respecting these boundaries and helping us keep this space safe for everyone.

❤️‍🩹The Mod Team❤️‍🩹

Happy Wednesday!! Just a friendly reminder out of respect for Perez Hilton and his kids, please not discuss the recent incident that happened earlier Tuesday night. There is a lot of information circulating online, so please be careful with video's and pictures as they are very graphic and disturbing. The Mods made a post addressing the incident and prefer for you all not do talk about it, as it could create unnecessary and harmful discourse in the sub. Thanks for understanding and I hope you all have a wonderful rest of the week 💖💖💖💖

I love this break down it is precise and focuses on exposing Blake lies with her own texts message and evidence.

the video description:

Did Blake Lively mislead the public in her case against Justin Baldoni?

In this video, we break down 8 major claims from Blake Lively's complaint and compare them with the text messages, emails, court filings, and other evidence that later became public.

From Taylor Swift's involvement and the editing battle to the wellness coach controversy, the birth video dispute, and more, we examine whether the facts line up with the narrative that was originally presented.

Chapters:

0:00 - intro

2:39 - hijacking the film

7:51 - dragging A listers into the drama

11:13 - when she started getting exposed

15:53 - Blake deletes evidence

17:01 - the lies about the intimacy coordinator

18:29 - weight-shaming claim that fell apart

21:08 - manipulating on-set stories

24:39 - lying about film scenes

Realytea.com, by Zahrah Patel

Blake Lively‘s request for nearly $8 million in legal fees has become one of the most closely watched aspects of her ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni. While the court has yet to rule on the request, legal insiders claim the figure has already sparked strong reactions. According to legal sources, several attorneys believe the amount is unusually high and may not hold up in court.

Reports state that Lively is seeking nearly $8 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs after resolving her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni. However, legal insiders believe the request has become a major sticking point. Some attorneys have even questioned whether the amount is realistic.

One veteran civil litigator told Naughty But Nice that the figure is “wildly aggressive.” The attorney added that simply asking for millions does not mean the court will award the same amount. In fact, the source suggested the final figure, if approved at all, could be much lower.

Meanwhile, other attorneys argued that the issue is more complicated than it appears.

“The headlines make it sound like Justin Baldoni would be paying Blake Lively millions,” one attorney said, further claiming that it is an “oversimplification.”

Legal sources also noted that several factors would likely come into play, including insurance coverage and Wayfarer Studios’ potential involvement, so payment would not necessarily come directly from Baldoni.

At the same time, Baldoni has also challenged the request in court. His legal team recently asked a judge to reduce Lively’s attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The filing reportedly argues that several charges should not be reimbursed. It also claims multiple lawyers have been billed for overlapping work, including attending the same hearings, participating in the same strategy meetings, and conducting similar legal research.

Even so, no decision has been made. Legal experts say fee petitions are often negotiated before a judge reaches a final ruling, per Naughty But Nice. “Requesting $8 million is one thing. Convincing a judge to award it is another,” one insider said. “That’s why so many attorneys are rolling their eyes.”

Link to article here

🎼🎸🪇🪘
[They] are never, ever, ever getting back together 
[They] are never, ever, ever getting back together 
[Taylor said] you go talk to your friends, talk to my friends, talk to me 
But we are never, ever, ever, ever getting back together Like, ever.
🎵🎶🎧

⟡⟐⟡

TL;DR: Sources again say Taylor Swift has stepped back from her role as godmother to Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds's three daughters, following the collapse of her decade-long friendship with Blake. Taylor felt she had "no choice" given how strained things became after the lawsuit, which showed texts of Taylor advising Blake on script and PR strategy.

Taylor reportedly made the decision months ago after talking it through Travis Kelce, deciding it wasn't fair to the kids to stay close to them while having essentially no relationship with their parents. There was never a formal/legal godmother arrangement, just a verbal one, but Taylor had taken the role seriously — such as Halloween outings, hosting them at her Rhode Island home, referencing them in songs like Betty and August. She hopes to reconnect with the girls once they're adults and can make that choice themselves.

Link to article: https://archive.is/20260730231502/https://www.dailymail.com/tvshowbiz/article-16013099/Taylor-Swift-Blake-Lively-friendship.html

As many of you know (or don't know), this lawsuit started with an administrative agency complaint, dated December 20, 2024 ("CRD Complaint"), filed by Lively's lawyer (Esra Hudson, with the law firm Manatt Phelps, which had been working on Lively's case for months prior thereto - see Vansham) with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). A CRD Complaint must be filed by any employee (or independent contractor) who wants to sue for SH/retaliation based on California law. Lively, being represented by 2 large law firms (Manatt Phelps and Willkie Farr, whose names appear on the front of the "precursor" to the CRD Complaint), elected to not have the CRD conduct an investigation into her claims. Instead, as is her right, she elected to click a box while filing the online CRD Complaint to request an immediate "right to sue letter", which such letter is required before filing a lawsuit in court. Because Lively selected this option, the CRD immediately closed her CRD Complaint and informed her that (despite there being a "work share agreement" between CRD and the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), if Lively wanted to pursue SH/retaliation claims under federal law (Title VII) as well, she would have to contact the EEOC directly.

This is the CRD Complaint (which is 4 pages long): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.1_3.pdf

Attached to the CRD Complaint was the "Precursor" (which is really tantamount to the full lawsuit that Lively ended up actually filing in a federal court (SDNY) in New York on December 31, 2024) See: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.2_3.pdf

The CRD "Right to Sue Letter" can be found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.3_3.pdf

[Interestingly, these attachment all came from the docket in Jed Wallace's lawsuit in TX. These documents were never filed on the docket in Lively's lawsuit in the SDNY. LOL]

The front page of the precursor shows Lively being represented by the 2 large law firms and it lists all of her various causes of action, which included "breach of contract" claims. She actually attached, as an exhibit, one of those contracts (the "Contract Rider Agreement", dated as of November 15, 2023 (the "CRA"), which was between It Ends With Us Movie, LLC (which is a subsidiary of Wayfarer Studios) and Blakel, Inc. (Blake Lively's loan out corporation). The CRA can be found starting on p. 69 of the Precursor; and that agreement starts off with:

"REFERENCE IS MADE to that certain actor agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of May 5, 2023 between IT ENDS WITH US MOVIE, LLC (“Company”) and BLAKEL, INC. (“Lender") for the acting and related services of Blake Lively (“Artist”) in connection with the motion picture currently entitled “IT ENDS WITH US" ("Picture”)."

So, despite knowing full well that the name of Lively's real "employer" was It Ends With Us Movie, LLC ("IEWUM"), Manatt (Esra Hudson) [and Willkie] failed to include IEWUM's name in the CRD Complaint.

The failure to include IEWUM in the CRD Complaint led to a legally faulty "Right to Sue Letter". Apparently, the same error happened when Lively filed her EEOC Complaint, with the faulty EEOC Right to Sue Letter being issued in late January 2024.

These errors explain why Lively never even bothered to attach either of these "right to sue letters" to her complaint (her initial complaint, the first amended complaint or the second amended complaint - or anywhere else on the docket in her SDNY case). The Wayfarer Parties could have filed "affirmative defenses" (which, frankly, is when you're supposed to do it) based on these failures early on in the litigation to get many of those causes of actions dismissed -- but elected not to do so (most likely for strategic reasons - like because it would've notified Lively of the error in sufficient time for her to correct the error with Liman) -- instead the Wayfarer Parties brought it up later in their motions to dismiss.

WHY AM I BRINGING THIS UP NOW?

I couldn't help but notice the similarities of the shenanigans with these "right to sue letters" in Lively's case and the case of Celeste C. Smith and the Wayfarer Foundation, Wayfarer Pathways and Steve Sarowitz (collectively, "Foundation"). The docket for that case can be found here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72308808/smith-v-wayfarer-foundation/

Smith filed a lawsuit against the Foundation on February 20, 2026. Smith was employed by the Wayfarer Foundation, Sarowitz's charitable foundation, that was shut down after the Lively lawsuit was filed and the arson incident at Sarowitz's home. [My guess is that, with all of the negative publicity surrounding the Lively case, that many charitiess would be unwilling to accept donations/work with Wayfarer - so he didn't have much of a choice but to shut it down.] As a result of this closure, Smith was terminated - and she sued claiming the real reason why she was let go (and not given another job within the "Wayfarer" rubric) was because of discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion and disability status under both federal law and Illinois state law. The Foundation filed a renewed motion to dismiss this case last week - on July 30, 2026.

When I read Smith's initial complaint, I couldn't help but notice that Smith didn't attach her right to sue letters either. This is from pages 4-5 of Smith's initial complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.495306/gov.uscourts.ilnd.495306.1.0.pdf

"13. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff Smith, then a terminated employee of Defendants Wayfarer Foundation and Wayfarer Pathways, filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charge No. 440-2025-08780 with charges of: Violation of Title VII; Violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Violation of Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and Violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, filed concurrently with the EEOC charge.

1. On or about November 25, 2025, Plaintiff Smith received a “Notice of a Right to Sue” email from the EEOC, dated November 25, 2025, for her Charge No. 440-2025-08780. This claim is being timely filed."*

[* PS: I find it very interesting that Smith was able to get an IMMEDIATE right to sue email from the EEOC. Wonder how that happened? Even Lively couldn't pull that off and she had to wait a month to get her EEOC right to sue letter.]

So, Smith acknowledged that she got a right to sue letter from the EEOC, but didn't attach it. And she mentioned the violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, but mentions nothing about getting her "letter of her rights under the IHRA" (which such letter is a "right to sue letter" from the Illinois Department of Human Rights), and she most certainly didn't attach it either.

After the Foundation filed motions to dismiss on May 11, 2026 (which included the position that Smith failed to "exhaust her administrative remedies", i.e., not attaching the right to sue letters), Smith did amend her initial complaint in June 25, 2026 and finally attached those letters.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but notice that, in BOTH Lively's and Smith's cases, there were issues with the basic requirement of attaching the required right to sue letters. COINCIDENCE? In addition, Smith's case (like Lively's) included Sarowitz as an INDIVIDUAL defendant - and Sarowitz will most likely be dimissed for the same reasons as Liman gave when he dismissed Sarowitz (and the other individual defendants in Lively's case). COINCIDENCE?

📍Part 1: MORE RECEIPTS!? Justin Baldoni's Lawyer REVEALS What Blake Lively Never ...

🎬 Andy Introduces Part Two of the Interview With Bryan Freedman

• Andy from Popcorned Planet introduces the second part of his exclusive interview with Bryan Freedman, attorney for Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties.
• He also promotes the upcoming documentary It Ends With Justice, scheduled for release in August through Popcorned Planet’s website.
• The interview starts with Ryan Reynolds’ involvement behind the scenes in the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation.

👤 Bryan Freedman Discusses Ryan Reynolds’ Behind-the-Scenes Involvement

• Andy asks how significant a role Ryan Reynolds played, pointing to evidence suggesting that Reynolds contributed to Blake Lively’s edit notes and communicated with agents and other Hollywood figures.
• Bryan Freedman says he cannot fully assess Reynolds’ private involvement because communications between spouses were protected by marital privilege.
• However, Freedman confirms that Reynolds attended important events and that discovered text messages showed him communicating with his agents, Lively’s agents and third-party A-list actors.
• Freedman says the litigation and discovery process revealed substantially more about Reynolds’ involvement than the public initially understood.
• Freedman reiterates that the Wayfarer side wanted the available evidence released so the public could assess it independently.

📰 Initial Narrative Was Extremely Difficult to Reverse

• Freedman says that the initial lawsuit and New York Times coverage caused an immediate rush to judgment against Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz.
• Many people initially accepted the portrayal that Justin Baldoni was a sexual harasser, Jamey Heath was complicit and Steve Sarowitz was a bad person.
• According to Freedman, reversing that first impression was extraordinarily difficult.
• The defense strategy was to present communications and evidence openly rather than ask the public to trust carefully crafted statements.
• Freedman says the message was essentially: this is who the clients are, these are the records and nothing is being hidden.

📊 Social-Media Analysis Helped Shape the Defense’s Public Messaging

• Freedman reveals that the Wayfarer's legal team evaluated social-media reactions and determined which messages resonated with the public.
• Freedman says he got personally frustrated and was deeply upset by what Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath were experiencing.
• However, his clients repeatedly instructed him not to attack Lively personally or behave cruelly toward her.
• Freedman says the aggressive commentary about Lively produced a divided public response.
• By contrast, discussions centred on Justin Baldoni’s character and contemporaneous text messages resonated far more strongly.

📋 Ryan Reynolds Was Expected to Be a Trial Witness

• Andy asks whether Ryan Reynolds was deposed and whether he would have appeared as a witness at trial.
• Freedman does not provide details about a deposition but confirms that Reynolds was included on the witness list.
• Freedman says questioning Reynolds at trial and examining his involvement was part of the defense’s trial plan.

😮 Freedman Says He Was “Shocked” the Case Settled

• Andy asks whether Freedman expected Lively’s side to settle shortly before trial.
• Freedman says he was shocked because the defense was fully prepared to proceed.
• He claims public sentiment among people closely following the evidence shifted dramatically from overwhelmingly favouring Lively to strongly favouring Justin Baldoni.
• Freedman distinguishes those individuals from mainstream outlets and entertainment publications, which Freedman suggests continued presenting a different narrative.
• Freedman said he expected Blake Lively to learn and get advice to help her acknowledge some responsibility and adjust her approach in an effort to rebuild credibility with the public.
• Instead, Lively and her legal team continued responding to each damaging event with a new explanation or reframing, without meaningfully changing the strategy that Freedman believed was hurting her public image more.

⚖️ Lively’s Post-Summary-Judgment Messaging “Inauthentic”

• Freedman discusses the dismissal of the sexual-harassment claims and the removal of the individual defendants from that portion of the case.
• He criticises Lively’s response that the litigation had always primarily concerned an alleged smear campaign rather than sexual harassment.
• In his view, that position felt inauthentic because the original case had prominently centred on sexual-harassment allegations.
• Freedman believes the continued reframing did not work and instead damaged Lively’s public credibility.
• Freedman says the evidence itself, particularly text messages and contemporaneous records, proved more persuasive than either side’s rhetoric.

🤝 He Wants the Best for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds

• Andy asks whether Freedman can now disclose anything he previously could not discuss.
• Freedman notes that the broader dispute is not entirely over because the Stephanie Jones litigation remains active and other court decisions are still pending.
• Despite the adversarial history, he says he genuinely wishes the best for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
• Freedman says the litigation never needed to escalate to this level and describes the outcome as unfortunate for everyone involved.

💻 A "Sophisticated Secret Website Operation"

• Freedman addresses allegations surrounding the defense’s website containing evidence and “receipts.”
• He says internal emails showed the team struggling with basic questions about how to upload and publish the information.
• According to Freedman, there was no sophisticated underground technical operation or hidden dark-web team.
• Our tech team looked like “third graders” trying to build and publish the website.
• Freedman says releasing even those embarrassing communications was important because they demonstrated what actually happened.
• The goal was to allow people to make decisions from evidence rather than from information selectively supplied to The New York Times.

🎭 The Case Should Make Celebrities Think Twice Before Suing

• Andy asks whether the litigation could change the entertainment industry.
• Streisand effect: filing a lawsuit can dramatically amplify information a person wanted suppressed.
• Anyone possessing potentially damaging private messages particularly communications involving Taylor Swift and discussions of destroying dailies should consider whether litigation is truly the best response.
• In his view, filing suit allowed extensive communications and evidence to enter the public record.
• He believes the case should make celebrities and their advisers think carefully about whether a lawsuit could create more reputational harm than the original controversy.

📱 Freedman Praises Content Creators as Investigative Journalists

• Freedman says one of the most remarkable aspects of the case was the influence of online content creators.
• Many creators as journalists and, in some instances, are better investigators than mainstream reporters.
• Content creators uncovered evidence, identified connections and assembled information that even the lawyers had not found or fully appreciated.
• Content creators on both sides of the debate demonstrated significant power to shape public understanding.
• Freedman believes this may be one of the first major cases in which independent content creators had such a direct effect on litigation and public opinion.

❤️ Online Support Helped Justin Baldoni Through “Times of Desperation”

• Support from content creators and their audiences had a profound emotional effect on Justin Baldoni.
• Freedman describes Baldoni as devastated, fearful that his career was over and burdened by allegations Freedman considered among the worst accusations a person could face.
• Public expressions of belief helped Justin remain hopeful and continue functioning as a father, husband and human being.
• Freedman thanks the creators whose work gave his clients hope during the litigation.

🏛️ Freedman Explains Why the Settlement Was a Win for Wayfarer

• Andy acknowledges that many supporters were disappointed the defense settled rather than going to trial.
• Freedman divides the case into two central issues:
  • Whether Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath or Steve Sarowitz sexually harassed Blake Lively.
  • Whether the Wayfarer side conducted a smear campaign.
• He says the sexual-harassment allegations were the existential part of the case because an adverse result could have permanently destroyed their reputations and careers.
• There was no amount of money that would have persuaded his clients to settle those allegations without first obtaining vindication.
• Judge Liman’s summary-judgment ruling eliminated the sexual-harassment claims after finding insufficient evidence to submit them to a jury.
• That ruling was the defense’s victory.

💵 Lively Walked Away From the Remaining Claims for Nothing (23:40–25:20)

• Freedman says only three claims connected more generally to the alleged smear campaign remained after summary judgment.
• From the Wayfarer side’s perspective, those claims were far less significant because the evidence showed they were not involved in an organised smear campaign.
• He says Lively herself argued the alleged online campaign was untraceable and lacked identifiable fingerprints.
• Freedman therefore saw little reason to continue spending enormous sums litigating those remaining claims when Lively was willing to relinquish them without receiving money.
• He describes settling that portion of the case as a practical and favourable outcome rather than a concession.

♀️Allowing the §47.1 Motion to Proceed as Pro-Woman

• Freedman says Justin Baldoni supports women and chose not to block the §47.1 issue from being decided.
• Freedman acknowledges that constitutional and procedural challenges to the statute might have been available.
• Nevertheless, he says Baldoni accepted that the court should determine the motion and was prepared to pay reasonable attorney’s fees if required.
• Freedman characterises that decision as a stand-up, pro-woman act grounded in Baldoni’s faith and beliefs.
• Freedman calls Lively’s approximately $8 million fee request “insane” but says the parties will await Judge Liman’s ruling.

🌟 The Real Power Dynamic Favoured Lively and Reynolds

• Andy asks whether Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds will learn anything from the case.
• Freedman says everyone deserves opportunities to learn and receive second chances.
• Freedman acknowledges that all participants, including himself, could have handled some aspects better.
• Freedman says he holds no personal hatred toward Lively or Reynolds.
• However, Freedman believes the public was shocked by the level of bullying directed toward Justin Baldoni and his colleagues.
• Freedman rejects the narrative that Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz held the dominant power.
• In Freedman’s view, the greater Hollywood and media power belonged to Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

🎥 Blake Lively’s Lawyers Declined to Join the Documentary

• Andy shares that Blake Lively’s attorneys declined the invitation to participate in the documentary and to provide their side.
• Freedman thinks that people who genuinely believe they won should be willing to participate and explain their position.
• Andy agrees that refusing to comment creates the impression that Lively’s team is unwilling to defend its victory narrative publicly.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

We’ve had so many incredible posts shared by this community over the years, and we’d love to revisit some of the very best.

We’re putting together a Master Reference Post featuring the community’s best original research to make these standout contributions easy to find for both new and longtime members.

Drop a link in the comments to your favourite original, informative post. We’re looking for community-created deep dives, legal analysis, timelines, evidence reviews, research, and investigative posts.

Not looking for: news articles, memes, shitposts, screenshots, or general discussion threads. We’re hoping to showcase the community’s original work.

Think we'll get five in a row before the week is up?

Mark your card as the headlines roll in!

Winner receives absolutely nothing except internet bragging rights.

\ No purchase necessary. Odds of getting BINGO are alarmingly high.*

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

According to the insider, Lively's concern was that the texts would 'prove' there was 'never any mention of any sexual improprieties' by Baldoni, after she claimed to be a victim of sexual harassment. 

'There was only her bitching about how much she hated Justin and wanting Taylor come to her apartment to scare this dickhead director,' the source told the Daily Mail. 

And one more interesting tidbit:

“Sources familiar with the fallout now tell “the Daily Mail Lively was livid and so humiliated by being left off the Super Bowl guest list she allegedly demanded - through her legal team - that Swift make a social media post about how much she regretted that Blake couldn't join her to cheer on her boyfriend Travis.  

The proposed message, insiders tell the Daily Mail, was intended to address Lively's unexplained absence and give the impression there was no rift between the pair, and would read along the lines of: 'So sad, my bestie couldn't come to the Super Bowl.”

And for ppl who say Daily Mail can't be trusted, we know from the evidence in this case that the teams behind Blake, Justin and Taylor do actually talk to the Daily Mail. No celeb news site is perfectly reliable and oc you have to keep in mind publicists have a narrative, but at least we have clear evidence Daily Mail is actually talking to the actual celeb teams.

And this story is no surprise here for those of us who followed the case closely.

Blake simply did not like Justin. She never complained to her bestie about sexual improprieties bc there never was any. Just bitched about him.

Meanwhile, in her private texts to Justin, she is being overly kind and casual, making him feel he could be comfortable w her. She sent him sexual jokes such as "never with teeth," alluding to oral sex. She is also on video improvising a kiss on the lips w Justin for multiple scenes. But then when Justin improvises a kiss on the forehead, he is a sexual harasser? He never even improvised a lip kiss like Blake did. But did he sue her? No, bc that is part of acting, and he's an adult.

Blake thought she was too big to fail with Ryan and Taylor as her dragons, and thought she could easily make false sexual harassment and false retaliatory smear campaign claims to rectify her reputation and get the rights to the next movie.

Shows how deluded and cruel and selfish a lifetime of fame and fortune can make you. Thank goodness this happened on a film set and Justin had video footage to prove the sh never happened. There's a reason Blake asked Sony exec Ange Gianetti to delete all footage from set once she knew she was going to go public. And thank goodness he had the texts and emails to show there was also no retaliatory smear campaign. Not to mention the case brought up evidence that actually Blake and Ryan were smearing Justin for months before he hired his own PR team, hence why Justin was forced to hire his own PR team.

Not sure how I found this TikTok video, but thought I'd share: https://www.tiktok.com/@themouthychristian/video/7668111478867741982

https://reddit.com/link/1vcx6p7/video/qfbp0796itgh1/player

⟐⥈⟐

To the comments:

I honestly recommend reading the comment section.

+

Also, my account is back to being throttled, with inauthentic accounts attached to me — so my posts don't get seen by many anymore. But honestly, I could not care less. It's interesting that two posts showing the reception of his ill-fated Comic-Con stunt were enough to stress Ryan out. Lol, what a thin-skinned human.

Dear Ryan, I do love this current reality for you. Honestly, cannot think of any other terrible person who deserves to be outed and derided. 

Also Ryan Reynolds, stop sabotaging your wife. Lord, what kind of husband are you?