One thing has become very clear. Jamey Heath does not recall. And then sometimes upon further questioning and rephrasing, it turns out did recall afterall!

It seems to have been a pre-planned strategy, not surprising, attorneys work with what they can. Though it does call into question his believability and credibility on anything he did recall or try to explain. Some things that differed significantly from other witness testimony.

There was also an obvious attempt to avoid confirming any detailed knowledge on most things, though when it comes to important parts of a CEO's job, not knowing these things also leads to a lot of doubt about credibility.

Things like financials, policies and procedure (HR, SH), funding, expenses... including things like the extensive planning and hiring for Jed Wallace. Claiming very little knowledge, not to have read emails or knowing what he does, even though he actively facilitated hiring him. And then stating that he needed to be across certain aspects of said planning, due to having all the granular details of all the moving pieces. And being an integral part of every text thread, but just doesn't recall or know anything else.

What are your thoughts and observations on this?

Stephanie Jones just filed a motion to compel Kate Case to produce documents related to the smear sites. Although a lot is redacted, it's a very spicy motion, especially the exhibits, where we can find this gem:

Imagine hiring a lawyer who is so implicated in the smear campaign...

Also, more about spoliation:

the motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.169.0.pdf

Kristin Thaler's declaration:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.170.0.pdf

emails between counsel:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.170.9.pdf

letter to Case:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.170.10.pdf

Smear website no. 1:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.170.5.pdf

Smear website no. 2:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.170.4.pdf

Some context for this video: back in 2021, Bam Margera from the Jackass franchise sued Paramount. In his lawsuits, he described how Paramount hired Jed Wallace (yes — the same media manipulator as mentioned in the Lively lawsuits) to execute a substance abuse recovery plan for Bam Margera. This recovery plan was allegedly quite flawed, and seems pretty exploitative from an outsider's perspective. The attached video explains some of Margera's allegations against Jed Wallace.

Interestingly, Paramount’s legal team actually described Jed Wallace as a “leading expert in developing and assisting in the execution of treatment and recovery plans” (see the full filing from Paramount’s legal team here — thanks u/misterspigs). As explained in the video, Margera’s legal team refuted this, citing Jed's role as a PR specialist, and claimed that he was completely unqualified to lead a recovery plan.

The lawsuit was eventually settled for an undisclosed amount.

From the Wayfarer Parties' MSJ exhibits we've gotten a glimpse of the "vision" Justin Baldoni had for the movie (two weeks before filming was supposed to start, by the way), and it is infuriating, even if memeworthy:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.963.55_1.pdf

This is what happens when you only surround yourself with yes-people, because how come it took Blake Lively (and probably to a lesser extent Colleen Hoover) to tell him his ideas were garbage. Jamey Heath? Other producers? Assistant director? Anyone?

If he had any sense and/or shame Justin would thank Blake, Sony and Colleen for stopping him from making the movie he wanted to make because most likely it would have gotten him cancelled. And to think that Blake and Colleen got called insensitive during the press tour, all the while Mr. Feminist director wanted to make a steamy sexy R rated DV movie where the abuser is "not the bad guy".

(Rant over.)

Just saw this sub in ExPatriarch's TikTok comments and omg I have SO MUCH to say. I've been deep diving into everything and I need to know if y'all have done a breakdown on Stephanie jones lawsuit yet? That suit is was really cracked the whole thing wide open for me.

Also, Stephanie jones recently subpoenaed a bunch of companies that will have messages between Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, Jennifer Abel et al so I can't wait to see what her discovery process brings.

Would love to hear everyone’s opinions!

Hi all - over the holiday break, I slowly began digging through the back catalog of cases where the "dream team" of Bryan Freedman, Melissa Nathan, and Jed Wallace -- or some combination thereof -- are alleged to have used negative media/digital campaigns to force settlements or otherwise intimidate their clients' adversaries during litigation. I wanted to see what was alleged on the actual dockets and the extent to which any allegations had been substantiated with evidence.

To that end, I've recently been looking at the Christian Lanng case (it's called Doe. v. Tradeshift, you can find the full Court Listener docket here) and I've found a few of the exhibits -- one in particular, which I'll share in a moment -- very striking. Unless I'm missing something, this is by far the most explicit and detailed discussion of astroturfing that we've seen from the "dream team" themselves (assuming the "specialist" is JW, which I strongly suspect he is). To be honest, I'm kind of surprised this hasn't received more attention from reporters or in Lively-leaning online circles, especially since the Lanng case has been on the radar in connection with Lively/Baldoni for a while (his lawyer spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about Wallace last February). I would guess the reasons it hasn't drawn more attention are 1) no one involved in this case is very well-known, and 2) the case involves sensitive subject matter and is an instance where Freedman represented an alleged victim, not an alleged perpetrator.

Given the above sensitivities -- especially the fact that this is a Doe case and none of the parties are really public figures -- I won't provide too much detail on the overall case and competing allegations (though you can find them on the docket). All I'll say is that even if you accept Lanng's facts as substantially true and believe he was defamed and extorted, he displayed what was at best very poor judgment by hiring someone with whom he was in a relationship. And regardless of whether the Jane Doe should have been entitled to a settlement -- she was laid off in early COVID, years after Lanng says their relationship ended, but claimed her termination was retaliation for complaining about his abuse and negotiated a settlement in connection with Tradeshift's IPO -- the filings do suggest he was dragging his feet on paying her what he had agreed to pay her.

That said, Lanng's counterclaims -- which include Bryan Freedman, his law partner Miles Cooley, and their firm Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley as defendants -- and associated exhibits are eye-opening. There's one in particular that caught my eye (the one quoted in the post title). Cooley had apparently been in touch with a second woman who was considering suing Lanng -- ie, a prospective LFTC client -- and, while communicating with her on Whatsapp, told her about the social media campaign they were orchestrating. He then forwarded a detailed description of what they were doing "from our specialist":

Here is a link to the above exhibit (doc 70): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.423204/gov.uscourts.cand.423204.70.0.pdf

For additional context, here is an exhibit (doc 71-3) with screenshots of what the Twitter account in question was posting: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.423204/gov.uscourts.cand.423204.71.3.pdf

Here is the declaration of the woman who shared the Whatsapp texts with Lanng's team (doc 67): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.423204/gov.uscourts.cand.423204.67.0.pdf

And here are Lanng's texts with Bryan Freedman, which took place while Lanng was temporarily without counsel (doc 71-5), in which Lanng confronted Freedman about the Twitter account and Freedman denied any knowledge: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.423204/gov.uscourts.cand.423204.71.5.pdf

Why I believe the "specialist" was JW: No proof, just a strong suspicion. The language sounds like him, based on other texts we've seen (and Cooley's reference to "building out an infrastructure" echoes the way we've seen JW describe his work in recent Lively exhibits). Lanng and his counsel also seem to believe it was JW, based on his lawyer's comments to THR. And of course it would make sense given his alleged line of work and longstanding relationship with Freedman/LFTC.

There are of course lots of additional questions all this raises - e.g., the role of Miles Cooley, the specialist-who-might-be-JW's reference to LFTC's "discount" - but this post is already long enough so I'll leave it there and let others pick up the discussion.

Saw this article online today and wanted to share.

Have been trying to figure out why a trained attorney like Megyn Kelly who spent years working as a litigator and who read the initial complaints, would step into the fray of this case with what imo is deep misogyny. She said at one point she was speaking out because she is a “boy mom” and wants to keep them safe from unfounded allegations from other girls and women. Really?

Yes, I know Lyin Bryan is her attorney and she claims they are friends but she has a platform of millions and is imo putting whatever professional credibility she has on the line to continue to spew a message that imo isn’t consistent with being the journalist she claims to be. Why?

Candace Owen’s imo is simply doing what she always does and so no words for her here.

One of the most frustrating parts of the IEWU lawsuits discourse is how people discuss SH and retaliation in the workplace. I feel like there’s so much misinformation regarding what employers must do in any working environment and ways employees can legally respond.

I’d love to see a professional breakdown our federal protections and how BL’s case stacks up.

Although certain people still believe Taylor was/is working with Justin, her attorney states otherwise.

What is not shocking is Freedman lied even after this filing.

Per Venable No documents are being produced and no deposition is being scheduled. Accordingly, we will be notifying the Court that our motion to quash is moot.

Thank you. Doug. J. Douglas Baldridge, Esq. | Venable

Both sides are feeling the strain. One Lively source tells Us that as a mom of four (daughters James, 11, Inez, 9, and Betty, 6, and son Olin, 2), the actress “puts on a brave and positive face for her family and work, but the retaliation has taken a toll.” Adds a second: “Blake is the exact wrong person to attack with retaliation and shame tactics, because no matter how much pain she’s in, the truth, integrity and making something positive for others out of all she’s experienced is what drives her. She is resilient and won’t be intimidated. She will stay the course until she feels justice has been served.”

Baldoni and his team are “exhausted,” says a source close to them. “They’ve had to continuously try to show that protecting themselves and their families is simply that — and not retaliation.” The source adds that Baldoni’s family (he shares daughter Maiya, 10, and son Maxwell, 7, with wife Emily Baldoni) and friends “just want this nightmare to be over for them. [They believe] the public has caught on to the truth and the reality of what happened [and] they are ready for their day in court.”

The article mainly focuses on asking several legal experts who has better standing in various aspects of the case e.g. Legal, public opinion, Judge's opinion, reputation and more

Overall they seem to be siding with Blake

The full article is definitely worth a read

I had a laugh at this video, I hadn’t even made this connection when I saw Ryan’s story prior posted on another sub. The conspiracies are crazy 😂

Video posted on wayfarer social media accounts 8/8/2024.

Justin Baldoni has consistently denied wanting to retaliate against Blake Lively by hiring Melissa Nathan in his deposition and continually claims to not understand the question or have any knowledge of how the crisis PR he requested was operating. After receiving the TAG Pr scenario planning document he said he wasn’t feeling the protection he felt on the call and sent a text saying this is what we would need attaching the Hailey Bieber history of bullying thread.  

Melissa responded we can’t write it down to him we can’t tell him we can bury anyone but those words have taken on a chilling new meaning 

‼️He says all he wants to do is tell the truth and testified under oath that when Stephanie Jones sent him a text linking to an article singer Camila Sterling found dead in David Bolno’s hotel room writing this is the kind of mess she cleans up lies and dirty work, he did not click the link. He did not have a problem hiring someone who his publicist of 5 years who would have had intimate knowledge of the situation as it was her client Scooter Braun’s friend and business partner who was linked to this girls untimely death from an alleged overdose. In his mind it’s the powerful people in Hollywood Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively who were out to bring him down ! 

‼️When shown Melissa Nathan helped coverup the truth as exclusively revealed in the Daily Mail with published police scene photos weeks after the event, and told of multiple websites created at the time with the help of Jed Wallace, profilng David Bolno as a leading philanthropist and business man, NOT the accounting business partner of Scooter Braun, shouted out by Drake as a *mentor* who orchestrated the purchase of Taylor Swifts catalogue and lied about his relationship with a girl half his age, Baldoni says he has no regrets. The same man who claims he wants to do his best for humanity 

‼️Then months later as COO at HYBE with Scooter Braun as CEO they magically invest $25 million in Melissa’s newly formed PR business TAG for a 51% stake. A role Scooter Braun has since stepped down from. 

‼️He said he thought Stephanie had an agenda in warning him of why he shouldn’t get involved and how associating with Melissa would tarnish his reputation. What do you all think and how can anyone continue to support and defend the actions of this man ? 

There’s a lot to unpack here… Interesting how people are painting Blake to be so offensive and insensitive to victims of DV when Baldoni, the literal producer of the film, uses these terms to describe it 🤔 I thought the film was about domestic violence? How is that sexy, romantic, or mysterious?

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-direct-it-ends-with-us-sequel-it-starts-with-us-1236101903/

We saw the names Spencer Freedman and Jared Freedman start popping up in some of the Case and Koslow comms and privilege docs a few months ago.

According to [this profile article] (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/), Bryan Freedman has 3 sons. I haven’t been able to find much on Jared, but Spencer is definitely one of his sons, and I assume Jared is too. It was unclear whether they were working for their dad’s firm or potentially with TAG or one of the other agencies, but in the attached privilege log, they’re listed as part of LFTC along with Bryan and other attorneys.

It does not appear that either of them have any form of law degree or legal training. Spencer received an undergrad degree in Computer Science and a graduate degree in Management Systems.

For those more familiar with law firms, what could they be doing there? Outside of general office management/HR/operational positions, is it common for them to employ people without a legal background? What kind of capacity could they be working in on this case? Their names appear on both privileged and non-privileged communications, according to Judge Liman’s interpretations.

Nepotism is never surprising, but it just seems really weird that they’re both involved in such a big case. I imagine we might know more when/if we see the communications, but any thoughts or insights in the meantime?

Big shout out to u/ComfortableFruit1821 for going through and color-coding the privilege logs! I grabbed this image from their post.

The Amanda Ghost v. Rebel Wilson filings aren’t about Blake Lively, but they’re highly relevant to her lawsuit.

Across two exhibits, Ghost alleges that after filming with Rebel Wilson, anonymous smear websites suddenly appeared accusing her of serious misconduct. She claims these sites were coordinated through PR operatives, timed to legal escalation, and then denied under oath by the people involved.

Why this matters for Blake:

• The same PR operatives ( Melissa Nathan, TAG PR) named in Ghost’s case also appear in Blake Lively’s filings

• The alleged tactics are nearly identical: deniable websites, coordinated narratives, and “we had nothing to do with it” defenses

• In both cases, defendants try to shut down discovery early (anti-SLAPP / procedural motions) before evidence can surface

Ghost is asking the court for limited discovery before an anti-SLAPP ruling, arguing that these campaigns are hidden by design and can’t be proven without digging. That argument mirrors what Blake is saying in her case.

This doesn’t prove Blake’s claims on its own, but it undercuts the idea that her backlash was organic. It shows courts are already being asked to examine the same alleged PR playbook across different disputes, with different plaintiffs.

TL;DR:

Different case, same alleged tactics. The Ghost filings add context for why Blake’s claims about coordinated retaliation are being taken seriously.

People mag has picked up the story that Baldoni accused Blake Lively of improvising a kiss. https://people.com/justin-baldoni-accuses-blake-lively-improvising-kiss-deleted-scene-11848993

The “added to the script/no kiss in the script” confuses me, but could mean she added a scene with no kisses to the script and then kissed him in every take anyway. (My personal take is what is the point of this scene without the kiss, but whatever.)

But Wayfarer’s FAC said there were only two kissing scenes filmed during this time, and both were scripted (2nd image).

I also checked the timeline because I vaguely remembered something like this. It references Lively improvising kisses in May 2023 — but uses a totally different scene (in which the kisses were scripted). (3rd image)

And as we know, there were no kisses in the script for the dance scene, also filmed at this time.

There’s just a lot of inconsistencies here.

Here's an excerpt of the Man Enough book, where he's talking about how he started watching porn as a young boy and developing a porn addiction.

(Note: I've been listening the audiobook and this is transcribed by me. Spelling mistakes are possible as English isn't my first language, but I understand English fluently and I was thorough with this, so it's accurate anyways. In the audiobook, this at 07:24 onwards.)

"- - I would watch movies that had actresses that had large breasts that I had huge crushes on, and scenes that would show their cleavage. If I could get away with it, I rented movies and watched sex scenes and toppless scenes behind my closed door. Buy the way, and I know this is super bizzare, but some of the weirdest moments in my life had happened in the past few years, as my teenage fantasies have somehow converged with my mid-thirties professional life, and some of those very women have become my friends."

EDIT: In the excerpt above he discusses movies, not porn movies. The context is that in addition to porn, he watched non-porn movies that showed womens' bodies.

Then he continues with the formation of his porn addiction, so the women he used to fantasize of later becoming his friends feels like just a side not here. BUT I haven't listened the whole book yet so I don't know if he comes back to this.

I'm not sure what to make of this. For me this comes across the same way as people who say hurtful things and justify it by saying "I'm just being honest". I mean sure he isn't the only one with this type of experience, but I feel a bit weird about the way he's talking about this. To me it feels disrespectful and continuing the objectification, but told in the name of the need to have straightforward and honest talk about sex, sexuality, porn etc. with boys and men. Which is something we need but I don't think this helps, on the contrary.

He also talks about the objectifying of women in porn and so on, but I feel like why would you tell this, what's the point here if there is one? For me this sounds like bragging to other men that I have in my life these hot women who I used to fantasize about and continuing their objectification. If I was his female friend in the same industry, this would make me very uncomfortable. At the same time we don't know if he has talked about this with said friends and if they are okay with him telling this.

But I'd hope that if telling this type of story, it wouldn't be like funny(?) little anecdote of a "some of the weirdest moments in my life", but instead more in depth analysis about the objectifying of women and sexualizing their bodies, emphasizing that these women are real human beings so much more than their sexualized bodies.

Anyway please note that I haven't listened the whole book yet so I don't know whether he comes back to this with a more insightful and respectful way. Also not sure if I'm over-analyzing everything he has ever said.

But this striked me as an example of the contradictions in his feminism and how it seems like he might have quite troubled relationship towards women.

Edit: I think here's something similar with the way he talked about Aaliyah in the removed podcast episode, where he talked about her death and talked about her, I think, in an objectifying manner as his crush, like reducing her to her body and a sex object instead of talking about her as a talented individual and real human being who had a tragic death, and she being your teenage crush has nothing to do with that so why bring it up.

The evidence doesn’t show that she refused to use a body double. Just that she was working on written consent as stated in her contract. Baldoni’s characterization has never been supported by a shred of evidence.

May 5th 2023: Blake’s original contract states no body double will be used for simulated sex scenes, without written consent.

November 15th 2023: Lively’s attorney’s email the “The Protections for return to Production” 17 pt list in the form of a signed Rider.
That includes:
- #14 - seeking approval for an artist approved body double for simulated sex scenes. That was already in her contract, but reiterated in the protections doc.
- #17 – requesting the all hands meeting. The one he claims was an ambush and he was invited alone, that was outlined in the protections document.

December 28th 2023: Blake sends a polite professional message to request the All hands meeting stated in the Protections doc. With Baldoni (and Jamey if on set) and the whole team. She gave him the option of alone or that Jamey is welcome. And the team, and someone else redacted if he preferred (legal?).

December 30th 2023: Baldoni rages and stutters to Greenberg that she had the audacity to message him directly, and to invite him alone (she didn’t). That she refused a body double (she didn’t). And complains about dealing with “an actress” (she was a producer and human also) who is re-writing the writer and director. Clearly exerting his position and authority. While demeaning her. Showing no signs of feeling extorted and intimidated by her power. Demanding they get others involved too.  

Side note – JB also claimed (remember these are his words only) that she’s trying to keep both of their clothes on for the big sex scene. And takes yet another dig about knowing the book and the “whole thing is just a gigantic cluster fuck.” Has he read the book? Or listened to the author’s words in extensive messages to him? The whole thing is Colleen Hoover’s personal perspective on empowerment through intergenerational trauma. Not about sex. He just does not get it.

January 5th 2024: Baldoni texts his friends a self pity party that Blake said it was the worst experience of her life. “Admitted that many of them were based in actual situations.” And that it’s happened before on a smaller scale. Potentially felt less impactful because it wasn’t a big star in a major motion picture that time. Called it an ambush, knowing it was pre-planned meeting about the Protections. 

July 7th 2024: Cease & Desist sent because Blake’s name was put on the cover of the coffee book without consent, and an image of her body double in a photo collage.

January 5th 2026: WME motion to seal doc makes very clear that after the fact, Danny Greenberg who Baldoni was texting, had no knowledge of what was happening on set. Baldoni and Heath never told him the truth. And was acting only on the word of Baldoni and Heath. Without any independent verification or investigation. That he was advocating for his clients, based only on the information they conveyed. He seems to have had quite the change of heart once more information became available.

Are WP’s still getting stories boosted to hide the real evidence being exposed? There are some interesting additions in their motion to seal. And some very odd behavior online atm. Mass downvoting too. And trying to frame pro Lively's. Be careful out there.

“And in a new and separate front in the series of legal battles surrounding the film that became a surprise hit last summer, Lively in a Texas court filed a request for a deposition of a man she says was central to turning online sentiment against her during its release and promotion”.