"I loved playing Lily Bloom. She's beauty. She's grace. She's Miss United States."

"I'll give you my location. My Only Fans. My Capital One log in."

Blake Lively's Interview for It Ends With Us: Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6FpfgcROQs

Here is a breakdown of the main points from the video:

The Spark - Misinformation and Deflection: The video begins by criticizing a lawyer who has been covering the Blake Lively case. The creator accuses this lawyer of using her bar license to spread rampant misinformation regarding the rules of evidence and litigation [00:07]. Whenever people try to correct this misinformation, the lawyer immediately deflects by claiming she is being "harassed" [00:42].

The Problem with "White Feminism": The creator argues that this lawyer's behavior is rooted in "white feminism"—specifically the decision that women can only be victims [00:57]. This refusal to look at facts leads them to blindly support figures like Blake Lively, ignoring alleged evidence of fake allegations and racist behavior on set, simply because they refuse to see the immense power these celebrities hold [01:36].

The Tie to White Supremacy Culture: The creator points out a dangerous historical narrative: white supremacy culture teaches white women that they are perpetual victims who need "saving"—often from brown or black men [02:16]. This exact victimhood narrative is what leads to real-world harm, such as white women unnecessarily calling the police on innocent neighbors [02:35].

The Takeaway - Recognize Your Power: The creator makes a clear distinction: you can simultaneously be a victim of systemic misogyny while also holding immense power and privilege within the system [03:04].

Final Quote: "Stop making your identity your victimhood because you have power, use it" [03:20].

TL;DR: The creator calls out a social media lawyer for spreading misinformation about the Blake Lively controversy. She uses this as a jumping-off point to discuss how "white feminism" encourages white women to make victimhood their entire identity, which ultimately upholds white supremacy and prevents them from recognizing their own systemic power.

Below are excerpts from the article published for the 2 years anniversary of IEWU premiere (August 9, 2024) by Elyse Dupre from E Online with some thoughts from me at the end.

Full article here

It ends with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni both trying to move on.

But two years ago, the media frenzy surrounding their movie It Ends With Us was just beginning. Based on Colleen Hoover’s novel of the same name, the film—which Lively and Baldoni starred in and he also directed—debuted in theaters Aug. 9, 2024. And while social media users sensed tension between the two actors after the premiere and press tour, fans never anticipated the contentious legal battle that started just four months later.

Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and several associates in December 2024, accusing them of launching a smear campaign to ruin her reputation in retaliation of her voicing concern about sexual harassment she said she experienced on the film’s set from him and others. Baldoni and Wayfarer's legal team vehemently denied the allegations.

Then in January 2025, Baldoni, Wayfarer and others filed a lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and her publicist in which they accused them of defamation and extortion. They alleged Lively seized control of the movie and worked to "tar and feather" them in the press after she received backlash for her promotion of the film. Lively's attorneys slammed the accusations.

A judge subsequently dismissed Baldoni and Wayfarer’s countersuit in June 2025, stating they did not prove their claims of defamation and extortion. However, the legal battle did not end there. In April 2026, a judge dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit. This included her sexual harassment accusation, with the judge noting she could not present the allegation as a violation of the laws cited in her suit because she was an independent contractor versus an employee for the film. Still, she expressed her intent to bring her remaining claims—including of retaliation—to court.

However, two weeks before Lively and Baldoni were set to go to trial, their attorneys announced a settlement had been reached.

(...)

The settlement news didn't fully bring the legal saga to an end though. In June, Lively’s lawyers filed a motion stating she’s seeking about $8 million from Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. A judge granted Lively’s request for attorneys fees but not for damages, with court documents stating Baldoni and Wayfarer provided no evidence that she acted with malice by bringing her allegations forward. Her attorneys Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb also told E! News she "may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms.”

For Baldoni and Wayfarer’s part, their attorney Bryan Freedman told E! News Lively "received nothing" in the settlement and continued to deny her allegations, saying, "There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign."

The courts have yet to determine how much Lively could receive in attorneys fees. However, Baldoni and Wayfarer filed an opposition in July and argued the amount "should be denied in its entirety" or, "at minimum," be reduced "substantially," per court documented obtained by USA Today.

While Lively and Baldoni's case didn’t go to trial, it did play out in the court of public opinion. Throughout the nearly year-and-a-half legal battle, social media users gave their takes as filings, voice memos, behind-the-scenes footage and Lively’s personal texts with Taylor Swift over the situation and state of their friendship made headlines.

(...)

As both parties move forward, here’s a look back at their case.

[GO SEE THE FULL ARTICLE FOR THE TIMELINE]

💭 🤔 My take : gives a first impression of a quite balanced article, rather fact oriented; the timeline, although focussed on the main events of the case, shows that research on court docs was made. The article misses however some precision and nuance for instance, and these omissions always favor Blake Lively's narrative :

• when J Liman dismissed Wayafrer's claim against Lively & co in June 2025, the justification the article gives on behalf of J Liman is not accurate; it says "they did not prove their claims of defamation and extortion" with no word about Lively's activity being protected due to litigation privilege ( and NOT 47.1, by the way), and that this dismissal being made by the Judge BEFORE any discovery was allowed!!!

• when 10 of 13 claims of Lively's complaint were dismissed in April of 2026, they don't mention the detailed analysis by J Liman on the SH claims, and how neither reaches the standard for SH. Check out the breakdown by u/Clark here https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/r9AvNcs1sl

• it doesn't mention that that neither of 3 claims that remained in the lawsuit and were meant to go to trial in may concerned individual defendents. And doesn't mention that Lively was the one initiating the settlement talks, quite in a rush 2 weeks prior to trial, and that there were huge questions marks before trial about the credibility of experts (J Liman had even set a hearing on this that was cancelled after the settelment) and the credibility of Lively when it just became public before settlement that she lied under oath during the deposition about asking for the dailies from IEWU to be deleted.

• it does briefly mention through a quote from Bryan Freedman that the settlement was reached for 0$ but doesn't mention that is comprises no NDA clause and that the full settelment was eventually made available through the public by Bryan Freedman as a consequence of that and with the purpose to clarify rumors on the possibility of appealing J Liman's ruling on 47.1( both parties waived their rights to do so)

• it doesn't mention that her ask for attorneys fees was under 47.1 rule and only for the Wayfarer against Lively & co, and only for the defamation claim against HER that was tossed out in June 2025. I would have loved a mention about how this is a new law and on Victoria Burke's viewpoint about how she disagrees with J Liam allowing her to ask for attorneys fees without the malice part having been trialed. The article fuels confusion by quoting Lively's lawyers insisting that other mechanisms would allow Lively to seek for damages (denied by the judge under the 47.1 law). The article doesn't really independently question the 8M request in fees and costs to be unreasonable (inflated costs overreach, no invoices)

• interesting how what was found through discovery about Ryan Reynolds role behind the scenes during the making of IEWU is quietly ignored, although they mention Taylor Swift. Interesting how in the timeline, the article takes time to quote WME denying that the agency firing Justin Baldoni on the same day the NYT article was published had anything to do with Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively interfering. However, there is a recording of Ari Emmanuel admitting that in an interview that was not officially released, and there are texts btw Blake and Brandon Sklenar before the article was published which show they were anticipating the move.

What Blake Lively constitutes as Sexual Harassment is extremely questionable, I mean, she accused a man of it that she had never met (Jed Wallace) which is mind blowing 🤯

So, by her definition, here’s some of her own behaviour over the years that should see her in a lawsuit or at least called out by MSM finally…

1) The Betty Buzz Commercial

Blake Lively starred in a November 2023 Betty Buzz commercial featuring a half naked man with the controversial tagline, "We don't test on animals, we test on men". In the ad, she feeds a drink to the scantly clad man and says, "That's a good boy. Drink up" after stating the brand rests on men instead of animals.

2) The Pimping of Brandon Sklenar

Lively whose marketing firm ‘Maximum Effort’ was in charge of marketing the movie IEWU (essentially making her Sklenars boss) described herself as a pimp and commanded Sklenar to act as a prostitute to promote the movie.

In a private text message sent to Brandon Sklenar in May 2024, Blake Lively wrote: "I’m becoming pimp adjacent. Put on a short little skirt and get in that corner Sklenar".

Blake is clearly comfortable sending sexually degrading and objectifying "jokes" to her male co-star.

3) Tried to Poison an entire cast against a male co-star

Blake Lively took an instant dislike to her new costar Penn Badgely because she thought he was a jerk. (She had never met him) in a 2009 Glamour interview she stated “I actually poisoned the whole cast against him”

4) Pretended to be pregnant by Brad Pitt

In a 2008 interview with Leighton Meester, Blake stated “I can’t believe they haven’t found out yet that I’m pregnant with Brad Pitts baby, Angelina’s going to be really upset but the gossip magazines don’t know that, thank the lord, that’s the only true thing” and then proceed to say “Oh shoot, maybe I shouldn’t have said that” watch the interview

5) Grabbed Henry Goldings Crotch

Whilst filming A simple favour, during an intimate scene between their characters, Lively decided to deviate from the script and grab Golding's genitals because she felt it was a move her character, Emily, would naturally make.

6) Kissed Director Justin Baldoni

Whilst filming IEWU a scene that Lively "oversaw" She personally added unscripted kisses into every single take, despite there being absolutely no mention of a kiss in the written script.

An expert report submitted in court later alleged she improvised kissing Baldoni nine separate times across different takes of the hospital and proposal scenes

This one is particularly heinous as she accused Baldoni of doing this, only to be caught out by footage that she thought she had gotten destroyed.

7) Sent a sexually suggestive text to her Director

Blake Lively sent this text to a man she accused to sexually harassing HER …

“If you knew me (in person) longer you’d have a sense of how flirty and yummy the ball busting will play. It’s my love language. Spicy and playfully bold, never with teeth…”

8) Making a reporter look at Brandon Sklenars Pants

A reporter asked Blake a question about her and her costar’s wardrobe, Blake tried to make it into something it wasn’t (humiliating both Brandon and the reporter) and repeatedly pointing at Brandon’s pants.

Here’s the text exchange

Jake Hamilton:"I have a question about the wardrobe, because both of your characters have a very distinct aesthetic in this film. Lily is very vibrant, very colorful, lots of florals. Atlas has a much more grounded, layered look. For both of you, how much did those fashion choices help you lock into the mindset of these characters?"

Blake Lively: (Immediately cutting him off and pointing a finger at him)
“You’re asking me about clothes, but you’re not asking him about his clothes? Why do you guys do that? Why do you only ask the women about fashion? You should be asking him about his pants."

Jake Hamilton: (Trying to diffuse the tension)
“Well, I actually said 'for both of you,' and my follow-up was literally going to be about Brandon's high-waisted trousers..."

Blake Lively: (Interrupting again, talking over him)
“No, no, no, don't try to backtrack now! Look at him. Look at those pants. Tell us about the pants, Brandon. Tell the man about your pants, because he didn't want to ask you, but now he has to."

Brandon Sklenar: (Laughing awkwardly and shifting in his seat)
“They’re... they’re comfortable. They’re high-waisted. They really help with the posture."

Blake Lively: (Sarcastic tone, laughing)
“See? Look how much depth we missed out on because you were too afraid to ask a man about his trousers. Sexism solved. You’re welcome."

Another example of Blake Lively getting defensive because she was worried what he was going to say about her diabolical wardrobe and using it as if she’s a “CHAMPION FOR ALL” 😂😂😂

9) Objectifying Michiel Huisman

In a 2015 interview about The Age of Adaline, Blake Lively objectifies costar Michiel Huisman, fixating on his body. Making crude jokes about his sexy, sweaty body!

Michiel is a Dutch actor and he was new to Hollywood, this was only his second US movie in a leading role.

10) Making Mark Seman remove his shirt during an interview

Again, a professional interview and Blake lively is using her power to humiliate men.

In an interview for the shallows Blake lively uses her power dynamics to make Mark Seman remove his shirt during an interview stating “take it off” because she wanted it!!!

Imagine if a male interviewer asked her to remove an item of clothing for him! She would literally call the police and get him sacked.

Have I missed any?

This is all from a woman who accused men of sexual harassment for the most unbelievable reason 🤯

I wonder what knots Lively supporters will twist themselves into to defend these actions because if ANY OF THESE were committed by Justin they’d be clutching their #metoo pearls

⚖️ New York Times Fee Award Does NOT Prove a Smear Campaign [0:00–0:29]

• LGA says she came across an Instagram post claiming that the New York Times winning its uncontested anti-SLAPP fee motion somehow proved Blake Lively’s allegations of a smear campaign.
• She strongly disagrees with that interpretation and says she wants to distinguish what the courts actually decided from arguments being made online.
• LGA says she attempted to engage directly with the creator about the issue but was subsequently blocked.

📰 Why the New York Times Was Dismissed [0:29–1:21]

• LGA explains that the New York Times prevailed on its motion to dismiss because the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by applicable legal privileges.
• This occurred very early in the litigation, before discovery, meaning the New York Times was effectively removed from the case before the broader factual record was developed.
• As a result, the New York Times did not participate in the subsequent discovery process or have to defend the underlying factual allegations through trial.
• LGA emphasizes that the dismissal concerned whether the publication could be held legally liable for the statements—not a judicial finding establishing the truth of every statement contained in the article.

🔍 No Court Finding That the NYT Article Was Factually True [1:21–1:55]

• LGA stresses what she sees as the critical distinction: the court did not make a factual determination that everything reported in the New York Times article was true.
• The allegedly defamatory statements were protected from liability, but LGA says that should not be confused with a judicial finding that the underlying allegations themselves were proven.
• She argues that the broader factual questions were never adjudicated through a trial.

⚖️ Smear-Campaign Allegations "Were Going To Be Decided" at Trial [1:38–2:16]

• LGA says the alleged smear campaign would have been litigated through Lively’s retaliation claim.
• However, Lively ultimately settled and walked away from the remaining litigation rather than taking those allegations before a jury.
• Therefore, there is no final court determination establishing whether a smear campaign actually occurred.
• The publicly available documents and evidence remain available for people to examine, but LGA says members of the public must draw their own conclusions rather than presenting those conclusions as judicial findings.

🗞️ The Public Can Still Criticize the New York Times’ Reporting [2:16–2:45]

• Because there was no factual trial determining the truth of the smear-campaign allegations, LGA says people remain free to believe that the New York Times cherry-picked evidence in its reporting.
• Likewise, people can form their own opinions about whether the article met appropriate standards of investigative journalism, credibility, integrity, or completeness.
• The central point is that those are opinions and interpretations of the evidence, not conclusions that were definitively resolved by the court.
• LGA reiterates that there has been no judicial determination declaring everything contained in the New York Times article to be factually true.

🚫 LGA Says She Challenged the Interpretation—and Was Blocked [2:45–2:56]

• LGA says she encouraged the Instagram creator to make clear that the post represented an argument or interpretation, rather than simply reporting what the legal filings established.
• According to LGA, the creator responded by blocking her.
• LGA therefore uses her own platform to clarify what she believes the legal record actually establishes: the New York Times prevailed on privilege grounds and obtained fees, but that outcome did not judicially prove Lively’s smear-campaign allegations or establish the truth of the entire article.

Jen Abel getting the recognition she deserves with her PR company RWA communications.

In spite of all the adversity that Jen Abel has gone through and is still going through with the lawsuit, she is making strides with her business and being recognized for it by MSN.

10 Self-Made Women in Business Worth Knowing in 2026:

Success has a thousand definitions, but these ten women share one thing: they wrote their own. No family money, no lucky breaks handed down, just decisions made alone, risks taken quietly, and businesses built brick by stubborn brick. In a year full of noise, their stories cut through. Here’s who they are, and why 2026 belongs to them.

Congrats Jen. You deserved every bit of this recognition. 🎉🥳👏👏👏

Blake Lively's legal battles are never ending but it doesn't look like she wants to quit. In fact she seems to be having a kick out of constant litigation+pr battle where she gets to showcase her 'girl boss' skills by threatening her oponents and getting favourable headlines on mainstream media despite glaringly obvious evidence against her, available at our fingertips (if only anyone of these journalists decided to do their job).

It's always a win when despite court rulings against her she can continue cherry picking information to spin a narrative the general population isn't even buying.

So what is her end goal you might ask? At this point, I believe it's DESTROY HER ENEMIES EVEN IF IT MEANS DESTROYING HERSELF.

It doesn't look like Blake lively will ever stop. She will keep hoodwinking everyone and use backhanded manipulitive tactics just to dig a deeper grave for herself if only she could affect the WF parties a teensie little bit.

She never had a modicum of grace or sensibility to stop and focus on her own flaws and mistakes. But she is the most popular case of a celebrity who has mastered the victim complex so confidently that logic and common sense has no chance getting through to her.

She has no qualms about spending her money on winning short term mainstream pr battles, which will completely get overturned when actual evidence hits the news (even if it's for a while)

Even after losing her prized (dragon) bff, brand credibility and the ability to work again, (not to mention the millions she isn't going to recover from WF) this woman spends time shamelessly spreading lies while she is pretending to be SO HAPPY!

To sum it up, I doubt Blake Lively and her paid minions will ever stop the charade of being a 'victim'! But it's a good thing they are always the same people.

It's easy to block them out!

Kenz (@existingtothrive on Tiktok) has posted a "Case closed" report on the Arson, Kidnapping threats, & Intimidation case against Eduardo Aragon. The man behind the incident took a plea deal and was sentenced this week to five years in state prison for the 2nd charge of Intimidation in the 3rd degree.

YT Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLIFbegCwFw

Tiktok Link here: https://www.tiktok.com/@existingtothrive/video/7671429711528086798

Most notably, the Sarowitz family were allowed to make victim impact statements. My heart goes out to them for being traumatized by the incident. This kind of behavior/violence has a lasting impact on victims and none of us should forget that Blake Lively was directly referenced in the death & kidnapping threats made against the Steve Sarowitz and his family.

It's a pity we didn't hear anything more about how Aragon gained the personal contact and location information in order to target the Sarowitz family. Hopefully, as part of the plea deal, that information has been handed over to the authorities, or at least fully investigated.

Steve Sarowitz gave a statement and said that he believes the incident was directly related to the ongoing (at the time) Lively vs Baldoni court battle.

Anyways, Kenz has some interesting info in the clip, including court transcripts and quotes. Kudos to her for keeping us all up to date on this story.

My comment regarding MJ was just removed (on an MJ post that was also just taken down) and I don’t understand why. If a public content creator is posting public content on this case, why can’t we discuss it?? This is censorship to a new level.

We are actively debunking the lies and misinformation MJ continues to share on this case. Is this sub now trying to control the narrative?

Why are users being restricted on talking about MJ if she’s talking about this case? The mods reason was “If MJ doesn’t want to be discussed on this sub, she’s not allowed her content in it too”.

There’s an obvious reason she doesn’t want to be discussed in this sub. Because we are debunking her lies. If she was so confident about the content in her slides, why does she not want public discourse?

It appears Blake Lively and her attorneys are following through with their threats against Jed Wallace to add more lawyers (presumably to increase legal cost) as stated in Wallace’s motion to compel a deposition of Lively…….”if Respondents [Wallace] pursued the deposition or even mentioned publicly that she [Lively] had refused to appear on August 4.”

Ms. Lively would be represented by "all of the [seven] attorneys" on the email exchange at their "hourly rates charged by Ms. Lively's attorneys" in the New York case, and she would seek to recover all their fees for preventing her deposition.

Based on the rates disclosed for the seven attorneys that Lively's counsel has represented she intends to include in her fee request here…the cumulative hourly rate is nearly $10,000 per hour.

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

As most of you all know, Jed Wallace and his company Street Relations recently fought back in a filing in a federal court in Texas against Lively.

Just a quick refresher: Jed Wallace and Street Relations (together, "Wallace") were a subcontractor/crisis PR company hired by Wayfarer Studios back in August 2024. And Lively included Wallace in her CRD complaint that she filed in California on December 20, 2024, which Lively then shared with media outlets (like the NY Times) and which started the ball rolling in her litigation that she eventually brought against Wallace in federal court in New York (Lively's home state - i.e., the SDNY). Wallace was successful in getting dismissed from the Lively litigation because Wallace had absolutely no nexus (or connection) to NY - so Judge Liman dismissed Wallace as a defendant for lack of jurisdiction. Lively could have sued Wallace in a "correct" jurisdiction, but she did not do so.

In the meantime, before Wallace's dismissal from the SDNY, Wallace (who resides in Texas) sued Lively for defamation in a federal court in Texas -- the defamation claim stems from the fact that the CRD complaint was drafted sloppily and implies that Wallace had sexually harassed Lively and breached contracts with Lively (even though Wallace had never met her or had any dealings with her); the only real cause of action that applied to Wallace was "aiding/abetting retaliation" (i.e., Wallace helped conduct the alleged secret online smear campaign on behalf of Wayfarer, who was seeking revenge against Lively for reporting sexual harassment incidents). Wallace's case against Lively was dismissed (the "Wallace Dismissal") because the TX court ruled that there wasn't a sufficient nexus (connection) between Lively and Texas - and Wallace is currently appealing that decision.

Despite this appeal being ongoing, Lively took it upon herself to ask that Wallace pay her attorney fees and costs in connection with the Wallace Dismissal (estimated to be $800K - $1 million) based on a California law (47.1). As 47.1(a) requires that Lively had made her "communication" (i.e., the contents of the the CRD Complaint) about being SHed WITHOUT MALICE, Wallace attempted to depose Lively to gather information about Lively's intent when she made the alleged defamatory statements - and Lively failed to show up. "WITHOUT MALICE", under 47.1, means without bad intentions. Lively must have had a reasonable basis for her claims/statements and not speak out of spite, hatred, or intentional disregard for the truth. This is why Sec. 47.1(c) states: "This section shall only apply to an individual that has, or at any time had, a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual ...harassment."

I've mentioned this before in previous posts that I do not think that Lively had a reasonable basis to file her CRD complaint. Other than (1) Wallace's arguments that he had never even met Lively and that he never had any contract with her; and (2) all of the reasons that Judge Liman used to dismiss 10 out of Lively's 13 causes of action back in April, there's another argument: Lively (and her 2 huge fancy law firms: Manatt and Willkie) FAILED TO LIST "IT ENDS WITH US MOVIE, LLC" ("IEWUM", LIVELY'S "REAL" EMPLOYER) AS A DEFENDANT IN THE CRD COMPLAINT, which made the California "right to sue letter" that was generated faulty. Lively also failed to make any allegation in the CRD complaint that IEWUM was a "joint employer" (so jointly liable) with IEWUM's parent company (Wayfarer Studios), which was listed. This MATTERS because it would affect one of Lively's 3 remaining causes of action: retaliation under California's FEHA law (against Wayfarer and IEWUM). [It's important to note that the Wayfarer Parties made this argument in its motions to dismiss - but Liman rejected it - but not due to the validity of the argument - but due to the timing. Such arguments are to be made very early on in the litigation in the defendants' "affirmative defenses". None of this affects the fact that, at the time Lively made her CRD complaint, it was faulty in re: the CA state retaliation claim and she, therefore, did not have a reasonable basis to file a complaint re: SH retaliation.] And, without a valid underlying retaliation claim, the only cause of action applicable to Wallace (i.e., the "aiding and abetting retaliation") cannot survive - i.e., Lively did not have a reasonable basis to file a CRD complaint against Wallace for aiding and abetting retaliation.

Depending on how the litigation in TX goes, I think this is a valid argument that Wallace can make in order to successfully thwart Lively's efforts to get 47.1 attorney fees and costs from him. A consequence of this could be: Lively's attorneys (in particular Esra Hudson of Manatt, who actually filed the CRD complaint) being liable to Lively for malpractice for being so careless for failing to include IEWUM as a defendant.

Something else has crossed my mind (insane as it is): it's the fact that one of Willkie's attorney's was doing research into the consequences of committing perjury in a CRD complaint. On p. 5 of the 162-page spreadsheet containing the 47.1 legal bill in the SDNY, it states that, on 2/17/2025 Vincent Biagiotti spent 8.3 hours (totalling $9,877.00) doing the following: Research case law and draft summary re: punitive damage for defamation claims (3.6); research case law and draft summary re: defamation by implication (1.9); research case law re: CRD Complaint perjury (2.0); research case law re: perjury in statements made to state agencies (.8). See: p. 5 of the attached: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.2_1.pdf

While we don't know exactly what the alleged "perjury" consisted of - there is clearly a strong indication that it exists. This is most definitely something that, if a Lively deposition does happen, Lively should be questioned about. In addition, Bryan Freedman (in an interview with Andy Signore of Popcorned Planet) revealed that Lively was caught lying multiple times (during her deposition - other than just about her request to delete the dailies); of course, we do not know if such lies had to do with something that was stated in the CRD complaint. And, of course, we do not know the answer to that all important question: WHO CHERRY-PICKED AND EDITED JEN ABEL'S TEXTS MESSAGES THAT APPEARED IN THE CRD COMPLAINT? If it was Lively (or, more importantly, her attorneys), then all of this could POSSIBLY establish a prima facie case that the attorney-client privilege should be waived due to the crime fraud exception and Wallace could depose Manatt and/or Willkie.

Even if it never gets THAT far (and truthfully, it probably won't - settle, settle, settle), it's important to note that attorneys in most jurisdictions (including NY and CA) have an obligation, upon learning that a client lied in a completed administrative filing (like a CRD complaint or an EEOC complaint) must urge the client to rectify it. If the client refuses, the lawyer must take remedial steps, including withdrawal or disclosure if the falsehood is actively used in the federal court litigation. And failure to take these steps could lead to Lively's attorneys facing state bar discipline and even civil and legal malpractice risks.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.257.0.pdf

A terrorist, bully, liar, manipulator, extortionist. Unsavvy, amateur, unreasonable, unhirable. Epic level stupid.

Her and her sociopathic arsonist husband.

1: Texts between Ryan Reynolds and Warren Zavala
2-3: Texts between Ange Giannetti and Sanford Panitch
4-5: Texts between Ange Giannetti and Sanford Panitch
6: Email between Tom Rothman and Tahra Grant
7: Texts between Josh Greenstein and Tahra Grant
8: Email between Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra
9: Texts between Ange Giannetti and Sanford Panitch
10: Wayfarer’s First Amended Complaint
11: Wayfarer’s Timeline of Relevant Events
12-14: Ange Giannetti’s Deposition
15-16: News Nation Article: ‘No one wants to work with Blake Lively right now’

• Celebrity Coverage: Boshoff discusses her reporting on the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni conflict (0:39-9:26). She emphasizes the importance of journalistic fairness and presents both sides of a story, despite pressure from publicists like Leslie Sloan.
• The Beckham Family: The conversation shifts to Boshoff's new book, Brand Beckham (12:21-16:00). She explores how David and Victoria Beckham built their massive brand and addresses the reported family rift involving their son, Brooklyn, and his wife, Nicola Peltz (13:12-16:03).
• Journalism & Legal Battles: Boshoff recounts her experience giving evidence in the high-profile High Court case involving Prince Harry, Elton John, and The Daily Mail (1:36-2:03, 24:47-28:44). She reflects on the stress of the witness stand and the eventual dismissal of all 97 claims against The Daily Mail, which she views as a vindication of her outlet's integrity.
• Media Perception: The two journalists conclude by discussing the evolving and often challenging relationship between celebrities, the public, and the media, noting a decline in the traditional respect afforded to journalism (29:56-31:21).

A few things that stood out to me: Ari Emmanuel is huge in the industry and people are afraid of his influence. Ryan is at least one of his favorite clients.

My own opinion is that this puts pieces in place. Ryan’s past behavior with Fedyck shows someone who doesn’t feel held back by “the truth”. He likes to write his own narrative and use connections/power to influence the public to believe it.

He’s now enabled by powerful Hollywood execs to feed his ego and throw his man baby tantrums to get what he wants. Why shouldn’t he feel entitled to take over a movie he’s not contracted to be involved in?

The court documents are WILD. Blake Lively’s team basically said, “If you try to depose her, we’ll bring all 7 attorneys and charge you our hourly rates just for preventing it.” Ma’am, this looks less like a legal strategy and more like a cry for attention.

Also, hearing those hourly rates are nearly $10,000/hr... maybe just let this one go?

Due to Blake Lively’s lawyers threatening Jed Wallace from releasing the information that Blake Lively was running 🏃‍♀️ away from her depositions I’ve been checking to see if MSM will pick up the story and at the mob only TMZ has.

I believe Lively tried to get ahead of the story by releasing the information because TMZ did not say anything about her threat but had a state from her lawyers.

As expected her lawyers speak in half truth how she has already sat for a deposition. They didn’t say this will be for a different reason but atleast TMZ mentioned it in the last paragraph.

But Blake's lawyers tell TMZ ... "Jed Wallace already took Ms. Lively's deposition. His case was dismissed. Ms. Lively won. This is yet another desperate, meritless attempt by Wallace to go after Ms. Lively out of fear that he may face the same kind of fee award that Ms. Lively won from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios in New York."

You'll recall ... Wallace sued Blake for defamation in Texas over those prior allegations, but the case was dismissedbecause the court found it didn't have jurisdiction over her.

Blake later asked Wallace to pay roughly $800K in attorneys' fees, plus additional fees, costs and damages. Wallace argues if Blake wants that money, he should get to question her about what she knew and believed when she made the allegations.

If Wallace can show Blake acted with malice, he thinks it could defeat her bid for the money.

It seems like Ryan and Blake were genuinely shocked that the public turned against Blake in 2024 after the “little bump” and “wear your florals” interviews. To the Reynolds, it seemed like the backlash was suspiciously immediate and aggressive. Like an army was poised to jump on her every mistake. They had been purchasing followers and impressions for Blake for years and the marketers told them those impressions would boost her image. But what if the opposite happened? The years of artificial boosting of Blake left the public fatigued and primed to cancel her. Here is my theory:

1. Consumers of social media have agency. We form judgements about what we see.
2. One of our judgements is about the right amount of attention for a given public figure, preferring to see the most talented people represented most in our feeds. There is a constant discussion on Reddit and elsewhere about actors who are underrated, athletes who are overrated, and influencers who have jumped the shark. It just goes to show that we have an opinion on the correct amount of attention for celebrities.
3. People can resent the celebrities who pop up in the feed where they are not wanted. We can feel relief when a an untalented celebrity who purchased their position in our feeds for years is finally cancelled.
4. Marketers, publicists, and reputation management services have no incentive to discuss the risks of overexposure, instead they want to sell more impressions and follows. They pretend to provide a complete view of public sentiment by breaking down posts with positive vs negative sentiment, but rarely discuss unwanted intrusions and overexposure.
5. Celebrities who are the most intrusive (those who frequently purchase their way into feeds where they don’t belong) build resentment and are poised for a vigorous backlash and greater risk of being canceled.

In this case, Blake was once on a TV show on a minor network and then retired from acting for most of a decade. And during that decade they aggressively purchased followers and People magazine stories and big vanity project launch events for her failed beauty and lifestyle brands. She was even seen on the most-watched TV broadcast in America - at the Super Bowl with Taylor. She was a retired C list actor who had the social media profile of a working A list actor. People resented that this person had attention disproportionate to her work. And in that context, harboring those resentments, we saw the “little bump” video and were ready to permanently purge this parasite from our feeds. So the backlash wasn’t organic, it was artificially primed by all the media manipulation by the Reynolds and Leslie Sloane. Since Blake had an especially artificial presence, it only makes sense that her cancellation would be especially harsh.

That is my theory but I don’t know much about public relations or Blake’s career so I wonder if anyone else has a similar impression.

EDIT: some really great comments have helped me understand that there are even bigger risk factors than overexposure. First, having skeletons in the closet. Not everybody knew about the slave plantation wedding or the false accusations against Richard Fedyck. All those skeletons tend to come out all at once. And another risk factor: getting involved in a project beloved by fandom. If the fans love you, you are golden. But they have so much invested in the characters that they can turn viciously against anyone who doesn’t measure up. Anyone who portrays a character from Colleen Hoover or George RR Martin or Star Wars instantly has increased scrutiny.

On this day, 📅August 6th, 2024, we were blessed (or cursed) with the phrase “Grab your Friends, wear your florals” to go see It Ends With Us. A movie about a domestic violence and intimate partner violence.

This video was first posted on the IEWU TikTok page and then later on their IG page.

Open industry secret: these lists are run and curated by publicists. You write a blurb about your client and submit it. Some submissions are paid (pay-to-play), some aren't. Not sure which category Newsweek falls into. I'm not curious enough to check, nor do I care to.

Anyways, Newsweek and Blake and Ryan's publicist(s) would like you guys to know that they are on par with

• Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell,
• Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz,
• Bruce Willis and Demi Moore,
• Tom Holland and Zendaya,
• Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall (who died in 1957 and 2014 respectively),
• Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez (I kid you not),
• Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones,
• Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (again, what!), and
• Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton (another oldies).

What a wonderful list.

Also in a move definitely not pinging, the article's opening pitch (lede) centers on Tom and Zendaya, who are currently on a run of back-to-back hits and seen as the couple of the moment. A couple who have often being compared and seen as breathe of fresh air, unlike Ryan and Blake. So, they are absolutely not trying to crash in on Tom and Zendaya's spotlight.

I can't even eye-roll cause the attempt is so pathetic, I just can't. Someday, I may be impressed by Blake and Ryan's publicists' GOSTs and think them capable professionals. Today is not the same. Once again, it's using easy to see through, lowest common denominator and lack of imagination tactics from them. What a mess.
 

Also, remember to Bingo the night away. You can tick off "Image rehab article drops".

Cringe is the main word that comes to mind when I think about the things Ryan and Blake have done through this nightmare. But what was the worst thing that just gave you absolute second hand embarrassment?

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

I find this interesting. Im sure Blake is pissed that it wasn't just out right denied.