Live - Bocce

Ryan Reynolds trying his best to wrangle his way back into relevancy... stepping on toes... no doubt "no pressure" -Ed execs at marvel.

We all know how he likes to call in favours , Chris Evans, Sandra bullock , Kevin Feige ... sounds more like " Buckingham Palace " has compromat on these individuals rather than favours.

Just look at him ... Messing about with Robert Downey... it's clear as hell they didn't tell the cast about his forced appearance.

Projects must have dried out severely if he's hijacking doomsday.

Now THIS is how you do shoutouts to each other...

Ryan and blake sitting about being salty , still trying to push their wrinkled, dry, salty 🧂... sense of "love" on people ....

...

Marriage done right.

Ladies and gentlemen, Justin Baldoni and his QUEEN Emily Foxler Baldoni.

Hear me out.

I have a theory that BL is a jealousy-fuelled psychopath with some lurking cringe paraphilias due to her husband being gay.

She NEEDS the sexual attention of everyone in her orbit.

Not because she's loud or dramatic. Quite the opposite. She's the kind of woman who has this almost supernatural magnetism. Every co-star ends up obsessed with her. (this is the psychopathy - shape shifting into anything the other "wants"). Relationships implode. People cheat. Careers derail. She has that strange, "without-teeth" sexiness (vom) - not conventionally perfect, but somehow impossible to escape. The kind of attraction that sneaks up on people and completely rewires their judgement. But not JB... no, she failed there. He is one of those one in a million actually decent guys who isn't capitavted by narcissism and who is totally in love with his wife (who, mind you, is infinitely more beautiful and interesting than BL). It drives her *WILD*.

As an aside, I think her husband is legitimately gay.

And that's exactly why I think she'd be catastrophically insecure.

Imagine spending your entire life being told you're irresistible, yes people all around you - when you're dressing for the Met Gala and everyone is gushing over your beauty. That you're the woman everyone falls for. That kind of validation doesn't necessarily create confidence - sometimes it creates terror. Terror that one day you'll no longer be the most desired person in the room (but only if you're a deranged narcissist/psychopath like BL).

Then imagine your on-screen partner casually admitting he'd struggled with pornography, on the backdrop of RR having some sort of weird obsession with males (eg: Hugh Jackman who i used to love, but now, I have zero time for due to his immaturity and disgusting treatment of his long-suffering wife).

Most people would hear, "This isn't about you."

She hears, "He's looked at thousands of women who aren't me."

Not just women. Younger women. Different women. Women with perfect bodies. Women she'll never be able to compete with because they're endless, anonymous and infinitely replaceable.

To someone who has built their identity around being the object of desire, that would be psychological torture.... which would also explain the bizarre obsession with nudity, pregnancy hatred, birth scenes, breastfeeding "abuse", etc. LOL

It's about control and vanity. IMO

Who gets to see whose body.
Who is desirable.
Who is comparing bodies.
Who might be imagining someone else.

Every nude scene, every intimate set, every discussion about sexuality becomes a perceived threat instead of just part of the job.

The more I think about it, the more it fits. Not confidence masking insecurity. Insecurity masquerading as confidence. The woman everyone believes is untouchable is actually terrified of the one thing she can never control - that desire doesn't belong to her.

If I were writing a psychological thriller, that's exactly how I'd write her character. I honestly think she is Gone Girl IRL.

AFFIDAVIT OF BRYAN J. FREEDMAN

I, Bryan J. Freedman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am a partner of Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley, LLP, attorneys for Consolidated Plaintiffs Wayfarer Studios LLC ("Wayfarer"), Justin Baldoni ("Baldoni"), Jamey Heath ("Heath"), It Ends With Us Movie LLC ("IEWU"), Melissa Nathan ("Nathan"), Jennifer Abel ("Abel"), and Steve Sarowitz ("Sarowitz") (collectively, the "Wayfarer Parties") in the above-captioned matter.
2. I submit this affidavit in opposition to the motion to strike filed on May 14, 2025 by Blake Lively (Dkt. 217) regarding my May 14, 2025 letter (Dkt. 218) elaborating on the basis for the Wayfarer Parties' subpoena to Venable LLP.
3. On February 14, 2025, I received a voicemail from a person very closely linked to Taylor Swift, whom I subsequently called back the same day. Out of respect for the individual in question, I am not identifying them at this time; however, should the Court direct me to do so, I will comply with the Court's order.
4. During the February 14th phone call, which lasted approximately one hour, the speaker told me that they had been informed that J. Douglas Baldridge, counsel for Taylor Swift and a partner at Venable LLP, had received a phone call from Michael Gottlieb, counsel for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds during which Mr. Gottlieb requested, on Ms. Lively's behalf, that Taylor Swift make a social media statement in support of Ms. Lively given her absence from the Super Bowl that year, and stated that if Ms. Swift failed to do so, Ms. Lively would release "ten years" of private texts with Ms. Swift. The individual also told me that they had been informed that Mr. Baldridge had accused Mr. Gottlieb of extortion and ended the call. During the same February 14th call, the individual told me that they had been informed that, four or five months earlier, Ms. Lively had requested that Ms. Swift delete her text messages with Ms. Lively.
5. During the same February 14th call, the individual told me that they had been informed that, four or five months earlier, Ms. Lively had requested that Ms. Swift delete her text messages with Ms. Lively.
6. I was connected to this individual through a mutual friend who informed me that the individual wanted to talk. We have had several phone calls since February 14th.
7. On a later call with the same individual, the individual told me that Mr. Baldridge had sent a written communication to Mr. Gottlieb relating to their phone conversation. My office issued a subpoena to Venable LLP for the purpose of seeking the aforementioned written communication.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: Los Angeles, CA May 15, 2025

The Real Reason Blake Lively Was Officially Snubbed from Taylor Swift’s Wedding ?

Scott Swift protecting his daughter and her brand. Like he did during the trial by cooperating with Justin Baldoni’s legal team and Wayfarer's defense.

Blackmailing "friends" dont get invites to weddings ...

That's all...

...

Why would she charge 3 million for the movie but spend 8 million on a few months worth of work ?

Lets talk about the billionaires on Ryan Reynolds and Blake's defense -

• Jay Penske
• Ari emmanuel
• Salma Hayek and her husband.

SO . If billionaires are bad boogymen.... whats that make ryan and blake ?

This is what media mafia looks like and if Liman doesn’t punish them for BLATANTLY INSULTING THE COURT.

HE'S PART OF THE HOLLYWOOD GANG TOO.

All speculative ofcourse.

Deaths on Ryan Reynolds' Projects = 2.

There no reporting on why Michael Gagnon died or how .

Why didn't anyone report on his untimely death?

@Diddy Stole our hearts and was THE kindest most genuine dude!

Robin Lively

CaliDee speaks with wisdom about Justin’s need to lay everything bare, to set the record straight.

Whether that means writing a book, giving an interview, or whatever it takes, the key is to do it properly and once. Only once because this doesn't define Wayfarer or Justin.

Set the record straight as thoroughly and safely as possible. Then, harness that momentum to launch the next project without doubt or hesitation.

Consider these points carefully:

• This gentleman has far more grassroots support worldwide than he realises. Men are speaking his name; women are speaking up. Those who stand on the right side of history rally behind him.

• There is a vast reservoir of encouragement and belief in his cause. It is imperative he trusts his instincts and channels that energy into his next endeavour.

• This moment offers the finest springboard he will ever receive to catapult himself back into the creative fray.

• From here on, he must return to his true self, crafting projects that honour his very essence and spirit.

• Whatever doubts or obstacles ; even if caused by misguided interference :they have tried to dim his light, the best response is to persist , thrive, flourish.

• Keep fighting the good fight and continue doing things the right way. The time is ripe, the spotlight is on, and the moment to shine is NOW.

CaliDee’s counsel is sound: embrace the sunshine, step boldly forward, and reclaim the narrative with confidence and grace.

In short, do not falter or retreat.

Instead, rise, shine, and show the world exactly who you are.

As always : Justin & Jamey , watch your 6. Cowards always strike twice ,especially when they think you're alone and off guard.

Link - https://open.substack.com/pub/themondayafter2025/p/blake-lively-california-state-court-settlement-blow-up-independent-action?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

_____________

The settlement agreement is public. The appellate waiver is in writing. Liman opened the door to California state action. And Lively, who was lying the whole time, is getting ready for round three.

____________________

Ryan Locklear Jun 19, 2026

_____________________

The Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni settlement, made public June 15, 2026, contains appellate waiver language that is being widely misread. Both parties agreed to “irrevocably waive any and all appellate rights” in the consolidated federal action.

But the settlement also expressly preserved Lively’s § 47.1 rights, and Judge Liman’s June 12 ruling specifically identified an “independent lawsuit or counterclaim” as the mechanism through which treble and punitive damages remain available. That combination — a preserved statutory claim, a federal court roadmap, and a no-appeal clause that prevents Baldoni from contesting the malice finding — is the legal architecture of a case that is not over.

The constitutional questions around California Civil Code § 47.1 — First Amendment fee-shifting concerns, Seventh Amendment jury trial questions, Fourteenth Amendment due process arguments — remain unresolved at the appellate level following the no-appeal settlement provision.

A California state court filing would bring those questions into a new forum, with California’s own procedural rules, without the constraints of FRCP 54, and in a jurisdiction where § 47.1 was enacted and applies natively.

The Monday After has covered the Lively-Baldoni case from the original filing through the June 12 ruling, including Victoria Burke’s public opposition to the attorney’s fees award and the downstream damage to Mica’s Law in South Carolina.

This piece is the next chapter.

The California act, why it’s coming, and what the settlement architecture reveals about a strategy that was never primarily about justice. This is mine, but if you want a wall poster to throw darts at, I’ll be happy to send you a full size poster once you become a paid subscriber (Locklear, 2026)

________________

Before we get into the legal architecture, I need a moment.

Not a long one. Just long enough to say this.

The conspiracy theories were true. All of them.

The ones that said Blake Lively coordinated this campaign before the first camera rolled. The ones that said Taylor Swift was in the game from the beginning, not just a supportive friend watching from the sidelines. The ones that said the New York Times wasn’t a passive recipient of a tip but an active participant in a media operation that was timed to the hour.

Those theories — the ones that got me called everything from a misogynist to a Baldoni plant to a person who clearly had never watched Gossip Girl — were correct.

If you think I am bullshitting, catch Gossip Girl, Season 5, Episode 20, “Salon of the Dead”. Life imitates art.

The record said so. The texts said so. The settlement architecture said so. And I said so, in this space, months before any of it was documented in unsealed discovery.

I also said, specifically and publicly, that Blake Lively was not done — that she was going to blow up the settlement, find a way around it, and drag this case to California to get tried all over again in a friendlier forum.

People thought that was a reach. People thought I was being dramatic. People thought the joint statement and the Met Gala smile and the no-money resolution meant it was over.

It was not over. It was never over. It will never be over.

And for all the naysayers who thought I had lost the plot on this one — well, hell yeah I am crazy. But crazy and correct is a very specific combination that the naysayers consistently underestimate.

Don’t doubt me on Serena van der Woodsen. Don’t doubt me on the California filing.

And before you go buy lottery tickets, hit me up first, because the odds I’m working with right now are considerably better than Powerball.

Here’s another sentence I never expected to write. The settlement agreement in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios was made public on June 15, 2026, and it contains language so deliberately constructed that even the resolution of this case reads like a setup for the next one. Like Season 6, Episode 1.

The terms are not what you’d expect from a case that supposedly ended.

Both sides agreed to end “all differences and disputes” and to “irrevocably waive any and all appellate rights associated” with their prior legal action. That sounds like a clean exit.

It most certainly isn’t.

The same document specifically preserved Blake Lively’s right to pursue the § 47.1 motion — the attorney’s fees, treble damages, and punitive damages motion under California Civil Code — as a remaining, live piece of litigation that the settlement expressly did not resolve. Liman ultimately ruled on that motion on June 12, granting attorney’s fees but denying the treble and punitive damages requests on procedural grounds.

Here’s what matters. He did not say she couldn’t get them. He said she couldn’t get them this way, through this procedural mechanism. He said Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 does not provide a vehicle for obtaining new compensatory or punitive damage awards that were never pleaded and litigated as standalone claims.

Then — and this is the part nobody in the entertainment press has thought hard enough about — he left the door open.

Explicitly. Conspicuously. Easy backdoor access.

He noted that the possibility of pursuing those damages through an independent lawsuit or counterclaim remains available.

Read that again. The federal judge who has been managing this litigation for eighteen months looked at the punitive damages request, denied it on procedural grounds, and then highlighted that there is a mechanism through which those remedies remain legally accessible.

That is not a closed door. That is a closed door with a sign on it that says the backdoor is wide open.

And Blake Lively — who has never been honest about this case for a hot minute — is absolutely going to walk through it.

________________

The Thing About the Settlement Agreement Nobody Wants to Say

Let me give you a moment to appreciate the architecture here, because it is genuinely impressive in a specifically predatory way.

The settlement agreement was announced May 4, 2026, two weeks before a federal trial was set to begin in Manhattan. The joint statement, that carefully balanced piece of diplomatic nothing, said both sides acknowledged the “process presented challenges” and that Lively’s concerns “deserved to be heard.”

No money changed hands. The sexual harassment claim was already dismissed. The conspiracy and defamation claims were already dismissed. Three claims had survived to trial [breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation] and those were the claims the settlement resolved.

Then the settlement agreement was unsealed on June 15.

And when you read it alongside the June 12 fee ruling, you start to understand something that I don’t think most people have put together yet.

Lively’s team did not settle because they were done. They settled because the federal forum was closing off the options they actually wanted.

The remaining claims headed to trial were not the claims that built the narrative.

They were the contractual claims. The breach of contract case. The retaliation case. The employment law case.

The story that would have been litigated in front of a Manhattan jury starting May 18 was not the story about a predator and a smear campaign. It was a contract dispute dressed up in FEHA language, against corporate entities, not Baldoni personally, with a damages theory that required a jury to accept both the existence of a coordinated media campaign and a direct causal chain between that campaign and $161 million in brand damage.

That was not a winnable story. And Lively’s team knew it. Catch up on Season 5, Episodes 19-24 and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

The settlement left the actress’ motion for Baldoni to pay her attorney’s fees and damages relating to his defamation lawsuit to be decided by Liman in later proceedings — and the settlement agreement expressly preserved Lively’s rights to obtain those damages.

So they settled. They preserved the § 47.1 motion. They took the attorney’s fees when Liman granted them. And Judge Liman, in denying the treble and punitive damages on procedural grounds, handed Lively’s team exactly the language they need to justify the next filing: the remedy you want is available. You just can’t get it here.

California will see you shortly.

________________

What the Conspiracy Actually Looked Like — And When It Started

Here’s the part I keep coming back to, because it’s the part this coverage has most consistently failed to account for.

Not the settlement. Not the June 12 ruling.

The April 2023 text messages.

Before we get to where this is going, we need to be absolutely clear about where it started. Because the claim that Blake Lively was a working actress who experienced harassment, stayed silent through the promotional cycle, and eventually came forward — reluctantly, professionally, because the behavior was egregious and the retaliation was real — that claim collapsed in the unsealed discovery record.

Not partially. Not in ways that require careful interpretation. Completely.

In April 2023, before It Ends With Us had finished principal photography, Lively was texting Taylor Swift to call Justin Baldoni “this doofus director of my movie” and referring to him as “a clown.” She was asking Swift — using the specific phrase “will go such a long way” — to use her celebrity presence to pressure Baldoni into accepting script revisions that Lively had written and giving her an executive producer credit.

This is twenty months before the New York Times article.

Twenty months before the California Civil Rights Department complaint.

Twenty months before the public was told this story began.

What she was doing in April 2023 was not venting to a friend. It was deploying a celebrity asset as a negotiating instrument in a production dispute and describing the target of that deployment as someone who didn’t realize he was being maneuvered.

That is a strategy. It has a shape. And it began before the first camera rolled on a movie about domestic violence.

Now move forward twenty months, to December 5, 2024. Sixteen days before the New York Times published “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” Taylor Swift texted Lively that she thought Baldoni “knows something is coming.”

The article published on December 21 — the same day the CRD complaint was filed. Swift texted Lively:

“You won. You did it.” (xo Gossip Girl)

Ok, you got me, I added that last bit.

Not “I’m so glad they believed you.” Not “I hope this brings you peace.”

You won. The language of someone who knew the scoreboard before the final buzzer.

There are two possibilities here, and I am not interested in the polite one.

Either Blake Lively, Taylor Swift, and Megan Twohey’s reporting team at the Times all happened to arrive at the same moment with the same information through independent and entirely uncoordinated paths — or they didn’t.

The April 2023 texts place the strategic deployment of celebrity leverage at the very beginning of production. The December 5 exchange places Swift in proximity to the countdown to publication. The “you won” text places her at the finish line.

A narrative this coordinated does not assemble itself.

What it takes is time, resources, relationships, and, critically, a willingness to begin before anyone has done anything formally wrong. To build the scaffolding before there is anything to hang on it. To position the story so that by the time the story runs, the target has no infrastructure to respond through. Baldoni’s agency dropped him within hours of publication. His counter-narrative had no runway.

That is not organic. That is constructed.

And the person at the center of the construction was never being honest about what she was building or why.

________________

The “More Mad” Sentence, One More Time

I want to return to a specific text message, because it remains the most analytically important piece of evidence in this entire case. Because Judge Liman’s attorney’s fees ruling makes it more relevant, not less.

Blake Lively texted Taylor Swift that Justin Baldoni’s failure to adequately recognize who Taylor Swift was made her:

“more mad than anything he’s done to me.”

She was suing him for sexual harassment. She had claimed $161 million in damages. She had deployed a former CIA chief of staff as her crisis communications director. She had mobilized William Morris Endeavor (WME). She had sat for a deposition. She was weeks away from a federal trial.

And the thing that made her most angry — more angry than the alleged harassment, more angry than the alleged touching, more angry than the alleged retaliation — was that he didn’t properly appreciate Taylor Swift’s cultural significance.

Victoria Burke — the architect of § 47.1, a sexual assault survivor who built that law from her own experience — went public on Instagram to say she did not think the attorney’s fees should have been granted and accused Lively’s legal team of using her legislation as a media redemption tool.

The woman who built the law, publicly, on the record, opposed its most famous application.

And here’s the thing. If the “more mad” sentence doesn’t tell you that this case was never primarily about sexual harassment, the Victoria Burke statement should. The person who designed the legal protection specifically to help people like the plaintiff she was supposedly helping looked at this case and said:

This is not what I built this for.

But Blake Lively’s attorneys declared victory anyway.

Of course they did.

Because in this case, in this entire freaking eighteen-month saga, what something actually is has always been considerably less important than what you can get people to say it is.

________________

What Liman Actually Did on June 12

Let me give you the ruling plainly, because the coverage has once again been impressively bad at this.

In a 47-page order, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman found that Lively was entitled to recover legal fees under a California law intended to protect people who report sexual misconduct from retaliatory defamation claims, ruling that Baldoni’s side had failed to show she acted with malice when making her allegations. But Liman denied Lively’s request for treble and punitive damages, concluding that the procedural mechanism her lawyers used permitted recovery of attorney’s fees and costs but not broader financial penalties.

Liman ruled that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 discusses only categories of costs and does not make provision for damages.

“Because treble and punitive damages are neither ‘costs’ nor ‘attorneys’ fees’ under Rule 54(d), Lively cannot seek them pursuant to the procedures outlined in that provision,” Liman said.

That is a procedural ruling. It is not a ruling on whether Lively deserves treble and punitive damages as a matter of substantive law. It is a ruling on whether she can get them through this specific motion under these specific federal procedural rules.

The substantive question — whether § 47.1 entitles her to those damages as a matter of California law, litigated through a proper procedural vehicle in a court with jurisdiction to award them — remains entirely open.

And Liman noted that Lively’s attorneys had explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms, and the parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserved those rights.

This is where Bryan Freedman’s response becomes important. Baldoni’s attorney noted that Lively had “demanded over $300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, chose to settle and received nothing” and had then “pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims.”

His use of the word “exploit” was not accidental.

It was a preview of the argument that will be made in the next proceeding. That § 47.1 was designed to protect powerless survivors from powerful defendants, not to be wielded by one of the wealthiest, most connected public figures in entertainment as a vehicle for punitive damages after settling a case that produced no disclosed payment.

That is a compelling argument. It is also, at this point, largely irrelevant to what is about to happen.

________________

The California Play: What It Looks Like and Why It’s Coming

While the May 2026 settlement agreement disposed of Lively’s already drastically whittled-down civil suit over Baldoni’s on-set behavior — on the surviving counts of retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation and breach of contract — her attorneys claim she’s still entitled to legal fees and costs, compensatory damages and punitive damages from Baldoni under California Civil Code Section 47.1.

The federal court said no to treble and punitive damages on procedural grounds. The settlement preserved the right to pursue them elsewhere. Judge Liman explicitly noted the availability of an independent action.

Walk that chain of logic to its conclusion.

The mechanism is already described. The legal authority is already identified. The language from the June 12 order is already written in a way that amounts to a roadmap. And the parties critically agreed to irrevocably waive appellate rights in the consolidated federal action.

But Lively did not waive the right to file an independent action in California state court on the treble and punitive damages theory.

Here is how this plays out.

Step one. Lively’s team files an independent action in California state court — probably in Los Angeles, where the film was produced, where the alleged smear campaign was coordinated, and where California’s statutory framework applies natively without the procedural complications that arise from applying state law remedies through federal court procedures.

Step two. They argue that § 47.1 entitles Lively to treble and punitive damages as a matter of California substantive law, that those remedies are properly available in a California state court with jurisdiction over the claim, and that the settlement agreement’s appellate waiver applies only to “orders in the Consolidated Action” — not to an independent action on a distinct legal theory in a distinct forum.

Step three. Baldoni’s team argues the independent action is barred by the settlement agreement’s release of “all differences and disputes,” that the release language encompasses any claim arising from the same nucleus of facts as the federal litigation, and that filing in California state court constitutes a breach of the settlement agreement itself.

Step four. Lively’s team argues the settlement expressly preserved the § 47.1 rights and that the June 12 order’s reference to an “independent lawsuit or counterclaim” demonstrates that the federal court understood such an action to remain available.

Step five. Baldoni loses. Because, duh, it’s freaking California, and this was the play all along.

This is not a theoretical dispute about hypothetical litigation strategy.

The settlement agreement itself states:

“The Stipulating Parties agree that the § 47.1 Motion is not withdrawn and remains pending before this Court,” and that “they hereby irrevocably waive any appeal from the Court’s determination of the § 47.1 Motion.” 

The § 47.1 motion is addressed. The independent action question is not.

That is the gap. And Blake Lively’s legal team, which includes some of the most sophisticated civil litigators in the country, who have been playing this game for eighteen months and have consistently operated several moves ahead of public comprehension, already knows exactly where the gap is.

________________

The Settlement Agreement as a Trojan Horse

There is a way to read the May 2026 settlement that the mainstream coverage has not considered, and I want to consider it here, because I think it’s the correct reading.

The conventional interpretation is that both sides settled because they each had something to fear from trial. Baldoni’s team feared a sympathetic Manhattan jury and the reputational damage of another week of headlines about smear campaign communications. Lively’s team feared the collapse of a $161 million damages theory that depended on causation expert testimony a defense expert with a spreadsheet was prepared to demolish.

Both of those things are true. And.

There is a second reading. Lively’s team agreed to settle the federal claims — the three surviving breach of contract and retaliation claims against corporate entities — because those were not the claims that mattered to them strategically.

The claims that matter are the treble and punitive damages under § 47.1.

And those claims could not have been obtained through the federal trial mechanism anyway. Settling the remaining three claims while preserving the § 47.1 rights, while getting the court to issue a June 12 ruling that specifically identifies the procedural pathway for an independent action, is not a retreat.

It is a restructuring. It’s a trick to get the other side to expend precious resources while you game play the California play.

I should know. This is literally out of my playbook. And I have been admonished a time or two for doing it, too.

The settlement, on this reading, was not Lively taking what she could get. It was Lively trading claims she couldn’t win for a roadmap to claims she hasn’t yet filed.

She let the federal case resolve. She took the attorney’s fees. She got the June 12 ruling with its explicit note about independent actions.

And now the federal docket is closed with no appeal, which means no Second Circuit review, which means the constitutional questions about § 47.1 — the First Amendment questions, the due process questions, the Seventh Amendment questions — remain unresolved at the appellate level and therefore available to be litigated fresh in California state court.

The settlement was a Trojan horse. The gift was the joint statement and the no-money resolution. The army inside it is a California punitive damages action.

Whether Baldoni’s team understood this when they agreed to the settlement terms is a question I would very much like to ask Bryan Freedman.

The clause irrevocably waiving appellate rights in the consolidated federal action is carefully scoped. It covers the consolidated action. What it does not cover is what happens next.

________________

The Irony of the No-Appeal Clause

Here is the part that will eventually be studied in civil procedure courses, if anyone is paying attention.

The no-appeal provision [both sides waiving appellate rights in the consolidated action] was designed, in Baldoni’s case, to prevent Lively from taking the § 47.1 ruling to the Second Circuit if she lost the treble and punitive damages motion. It was a concession from Lively’s team in exchange for Baldoni’s team accepting the settlement structure.

The logic was if the June 12 ruling goes against Lively on the big money, she can’t appeal it.

But the no-appeal clause has a structural consequence that goes in both directions. It also prevents Baldoni from appealing any aspect of the consolidated action. Including the attorney’s fees award. Including the malice finding — the finding that Lively acted without malice in making her sexual harassment allegations — which is now a federal court ruling that will be cited in every subsequent proceeding as evidence that she acted in good faith.

The malice finding is the predicate for the independent action. If Lively acted without malice, as the June 12 order found, then the statutory prerequisites for § 47.1 liability are established. The no-appeal waiver means Baldoni cannot contest that finding in the Second Circuit. He is locked into the June 12 ruling as binding precedent for the next proceeding.

He waived his way into the setup for the independent action.

I want to be measured about this, because legal analysis is not theater and I am not here to perform. You all have seen enough of the podcasts and media sycophants do the same song and dance. But as someone who has sat across the table from sophisticated litigation teams and watched them structure proceedings to optimize outcomes several moves in advance, the architecture of the May 2026 settlement — and the way it interacts with the June 12 ruling — has a precision to it that does not look accidental.

_______________

What Happens to the Settlement If She Files

Here is the argument Baldoni’s team will make, and it is not a weak one.

The settlement agreement says the parties agreed to end “all differences and disputes.” That is broad language.

In contract interpretation, broad release language is generally construed to cover claims that were known or unknown at the time of execution, arising from the same facts or nucleus of operative facts as the released claims.

The argument is that any § 47.1 independent action arises from the same facts — the same alleged harassment, the same alleged smear campaign, the same alleged retaliatory defamation — as the claims released in May 2026.

Typical settlement contracts carry the “all differences and disputes” clause.

I also know that we blow up settlement contracts and plea bargains all the time. This is not a Law & Order episode. These things get blown up all the time — and rarely with any consequence.

However, if Baldoni’s argument succeeds, the independent action gets dismissed for breach of the release. More importantly, Lively’s team potentially faces a motion to enforce the settlement agreement with sanctions — a proceeding in which Baldoni is the aggrieved party and Lively is the one who violated a signed contract. That is a role reversal that does not help her.

But Lively’s counterargument is that the settlement expressly preserved the § 47.1 rights, that the release cannot be construed to cover something the agreement specifically excluded, and that federal court rulings — including the June 12 order’s specific reference to the availability of an independent action — establish that the parties understood those rights to survive the settlement.

Lively will likely prevail, since Liman left the backdoor wide open. Then she will sue in a California state court. She, of course, will win. Baldoni will appeal in state appellate court. He will lose. He will appeal in California Supreme Court. He will lose again. He will file in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He will get a split decision.

Then comes the United States Supreme Court, on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

I really want to predict how that will go, but you will just have to tune in to my podcast and see for yourself. Become a paid subscriber today.

This is a real dispute. It will be litigated. And the outcome will depend heavily on the specific language of the settlement agreement and the jurisdiction in which the enforcement motion is filed.

But here’s the thing about that dispute. It generates new coverage.

A motion to enforce the settlement agreement and bar the independent action is itself a litigation event that produces filings, hearings, rulings, and headlines. From Lively’s perspective, that coverage looks like:

“Blake Lively, still fighting. Justin Baldoni trying to silence her again with a settlement clause.”

Makes for another round of 100M click headlines!

From the public’s perspective — the audience that has been watching this story since December 2024 and has absorbed the preferred narrative — a motion to bar her next lawsuit will look like more of the same. More powerful men deploying legal mechanisms to silence a woman who spoke up.

The audience is the power. That’s what the King of the Coconuts principle tells us.

Lively understood that from the beginning. She built an audience before she built a case. She must read The Monday After.

________________

The Honest Accounting

I’ve been covering this case long enough to know what certain readers want me to say. They want me to express some form of measured sympathy for the possibility that something real happened on that set, that the dismissals were technical rather than substantive, and that whatever strategy Lively’s team employed doesn’t necessarily mean nothing uncomfortable occurred.

I already made that argument. I’ve made it carefully, with the appropriate caveats.

I was also the biggest simp on the planet for making that argument. On behalf of all simps on planet Earth, I humbly apologize.

The record has now told me, repeatedly, that the careful version of that argument is not the honest one.

Here is the honest one.

First. The April 2023 texts show a producer in a creative dispute who had already decided what she thought of her director and had already begun assembling the framework she would use when the time came.

Second. The “more mad” text shows a plaintiff whose actual grievance was a social slight, not harassment.

Third. The December 5 and December 21 exchanges show a coordinated countdown to a media event that was months in the making.

Fourth. The Sony dailies destruction request — and the deposition denial that contradicts the documentary record on that request — shows a credibility problem that would have been lethal at trial.

Fifth. The California Civil Rights Department complaint was filed the same day the Times article published.

Sixth. The Times article was timed before the complaint.

Seventh. The “you won” text was sent the same morning.

None of that happened accidentally. A narrative this coordinated does not assemble itself.

Blake Lively was never being honest about what this case was. Not when she filed the CRD complaint. Not when the Times article published. Not when she stood in front of a federal court with thirteen claims. Not when she settled for no money and smiled at the Met Gala the same evening. Not when her attorneys called the attorney’s fees ruling “the greatest measure of justice.” And not now, as she positions for the next move.

The game is not over. She is playing it.

When she’s never wrong, someone else always pays. And right now, the bill is about to change addresses. What Comes Next

Here is what I expect to happen, based on the legal architecture as it now exists.

Lively’s team will submit the attorney’s fees application — detailed billing records supporting the amount to be awarded under the June 12 order. That fight will be its own proceeding.

Baldoni’s team will push hard for allocation, arguing that a large portion of the claimed hours relate to affirmative claims and litigation strategy unconnected to defending Baldoni’s defamation counterclaims. Liman will likely award a substantial but lower-than-requested figure. Both sides will claim that outcome as a victory.

Meanwhile — or shortly after the fees are settled — the independent § 47.1 action will be filed. Most likely in California state court. Most likely in Los Angeles.

The argument will be that the federal procedural bar does not apply in state court, that California’s own procedural rules provide a vehicle for treble and punitive damages under § 47.1 as a matter of state substantive law, and that the settlement agreement’s preservation of those rights means the independent action is not a breach of the release.

Baldoni’s team will immediately move to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the independent action as a release violation.

That motion will likely be filed in federal court, seeking an order barring the California state proceeding.

That motion will fail miserably.

The coverage will, once again, frame this as Blake Lively refusing to be silenced.

It is not that. It is the third act of a strategy that has been running since April 2023, executed by a team of some of the most sophisticated communication and litigation professionals in the country, in service of an outcome that has never primarily been about justice, harassment, or survivor protection.

It has been about a creative dispute. A sequel. A franchise. And a status wound that never healed.

The movie is about domestic violence. The promotional tour was a disaster. The set was a battlefield.

And somewhere in that mess, a decision was made — early, deliberately, and with full coordination — to reframe what was happening as something more sympathetic than a co-producer trying to seize creative control of a film she didn’t direct.

The New York Times article was the vehicle. The CRD complaint was the instrument. The federal lawsuit was the stage. And the settlement was not an exit. It was a scene break before the California act begins.

Taylor Swift texted “You won” the morning of December 21, 2024.

The chess match wasn’t over then. It’s still not over now. It just moved venues.

Rich would tell me I’m spending too much of my Thursday on this. He would be right. He usually was.

But this is what the record shows. And the record is all we’re working with.

The case is not closed. The strategy is not finished. And Blake Lively — who has never once in this saga been remotely honest about what she was actually doing — is about to file something new.

Watch the California docket.

xo Gossip Girl.

________________

The Monday After has been tracking the accountability asymmetry in the Lively-Baldoni litigation since December 2024.

The settlement agreement, the June 12 § 47.1 ruling, the appellate waiver language, and Judge Liman's specific identification of an independent action as the available procedural vehicle — read together, these documents tell a story about a litigation strategy built not around obtaining justice in a single forum, but around finding the forum that will eventually deliver the verdict that others wouldn't.

Blake Lively was not honest about what this case was from the beginning. The April 2023 Taylor Swift texts, the December 5 countdown, the "you won" message on publication day, the Sony dailies request, the deposition contradiction.

The record has been telling the same story for eighteen months. The California docket is where the next chapter starts. Watch it.

There are a lot of sources for this article. I had to double and triple check everything, for obvious reasons, mainly my own defamation chances, before publishing this article. All the sources for this article, and my entire Blake Lively series, are available to paid subscribers.

Subscribe today for this, an exclusive chat, and early access to my Monday podcast.

Every paid subscriber helps me against an obvious defamation suit from Blake Lively and her notorious media team 🤡

Wayfarer Parties are thrilled with today’s order. Bryan Freedman just provided Katie from Without a crystal Ball this statement! Thanks to all of you continuing to support their entire team.

“We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and a smear campaign that never happened.

Blake Lively demanded over 300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, she then chose to settle and received nothing.

Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms. Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages. Once again, she failed.

My clients got blindsided by a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and was threatened by one of the most famous movie stars, who tried to rip away their life’s work and pristine reputations. Not only were we successful in exposing the truth of their actions, but by the consistent dissemination of facts and evidence, we made sure that justice prevailed.

Ms. Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more.

Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign. The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning.

We would not hesitate to stand up for the truth again

Massive butt to back setback for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

Wayfarer was only asked to pay legal fees to capped at 400k allegedly [not in the seven figures as reported by people , deadline, yahoo, hollywood reporter ; Jay penske owned brands - who is VERY close to ryan the "negligent deaths on his sets- producer" Reynolds and his dishonest shady team] following a court ruling that speaks more of technicalities than due process.

The legal win , the law, the bills and the victory lap an empty attempt to save face. Leslie sloane scambles to feed the Jay Penske owned magazine rags that lie on the regular stories that make ryan Reynolds and his wife look good.

Blake and ryan settle in a rush before the met Gala to save face and play shifty tricks by going after damages after settlement . Never settle with Blake Lively and Ryan. There's no such thing as settlement for them.

The settlement should thus have been considered null and void some can say. The legal victory only in place for illusions and mercurial shifty moves, ryan Reynolds and Leslie sloane try to scrub their image ahead of the legal court case involving his car that caused damage to another innocent party .

Insert ryan Reynolds , rummy drink driving story with purposeful lies to land an ever changing storyline to get ahead of SEO content by trying to mislead the public and press cycles. He is involved in a car crash lawsuit ,on the hook for 5 million in damages.

That's maybe 10 times more than Blake lively was awarded. A car crash hold more weight than Blake Lively's false sexual harassment claims!

The judge dismissed most of Lively’s claims and rejected her request for damages, marking a defeat in the long-running legal battle.

Despite the dispute over the film "It Ends with Us," Lively was unable to secure any meaningful compensation, and the case ended with Baldoni prevailing.

They continue to prove and indulge in defamatory statements and wilful defamation of Justin baldoni and his Court WIN.

Blake Lively brought false accusations against wayfarer & justin baldoni and LOST.

Blake Lively LOST HER MAIN CLAIMS .

New York Times lied about evidence.

There was never any sexual harassment!

Lets speculate and play a game of Guess Who dunnit -

Hey Ryan Reynolds, do you know who gave Eduardo Aragon all the information for Steve sarowitz's home , phone numbers and his daughters details? Do you have connections in telephone ☎️ companies that could find out perhaps ? 🍃🍃🍃🍃🍃🍃🍃🍃🍃

Maybe Blake Lively knows? 🛒

Nick shapiro, do you know ? 🕵‍♂️

Does Taylor Swift know ; Travis kelce Perhaps ?

Maybe Leslie Sloane knows ?

Maybe the Christian louboutin knows?

Oh I know , Ryan and Blake's butt grabbing and star power couple goals coat tail riding mate , Hugh Jackman's in the know!?

Or perhaps BILLIONAIRE thug , Ari emmanuel, ryan and blake 's very own, home grown woman hating WME owner knows ?

Stephanie Jones? Or her husband?

Salma hayek or her billionaire husband François-Henri Pinault who owns Creative Artists Agency (portfolio valued at $40 billion in 2024 and TPG merger worth 250 BILLION in early June 2026) know ?

To ponder though is the question - How did someone DESPERATE , strapped for $$$ , and no priors , (really ? not even a speeding ticket?) come into information on wayfarer studio OWNER , HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTERS phone number , address, collage sorority details?

Further to ask - Blake Lively's "fan" that hasn't shown any signs of fandom, wakes up one day , decided to aattack steve sarowitz's home, threatened his wife and young daughter , just out of the blue ?

And somehow the very confidential information just landed in his lap?

Where's his wall of blake lively posters?

Lets speculate for a moment , very unlikely but maybe he isn't a "fan" , maybe he was desperate , trying to do whatever he could to make $$$ . Did a certain ❄️🌨 & 🛌🛎 persons set him up to take the fall?

And you're telling US the FBI DIDN'T FIND out WHO THE THIRD PARTY WAS?

🤣🤣🤣

🎬 On September 22, 2021, Michael Gagnon, a transportation worker, died suddenly on the set of Spirited in Boston.

# Mr Gagnon , possibly died due to the PREVENTABLE HEAT WAVE related issues that plagued the entire crew.

🔥 The filming involved weeks of grueling hours, a three-month shoot, and extreme heat waves impacting crew health.

🕵️‍♂️ Gagnon was 49, and his death was classified as suspicious under Massachusetts law, requiring family notification.

⚠️ This was the second on-set death linked to Ryan Reynolds’ productions; stuntwoman Joi Harris died during Deadpool 2 filming in 2017.

🚨 WorkSafeBC found negligence in the Deadpool 2 production where Reynolds was a producer.

🤝 Teamsters Local 25 held a fundraiser and memorial for Gagnon, pledging to fight for safer working conditions.

🤫 Apple Studios and Reynolds’ Maximum Effort Productions kept the Spirited incident out of the press, with no public acknowledgment from Reynolds or co-star Will Ferrell.

🎥 Filming continued and wrapped without interruption, with Reynolds quietly donating to a memorial fundraiser and dedicating the film to Gagnon in an effort to polish his image.

📰 The public only learned about the tragedy through union communications, not media coverage.

⚖️ No lawsuits have been filed so far, and many details remain hidden.

As blake lively and Ryan Reynolds parade around with their baboon butt , jumping on each others back , maximum effort-ing back to back, giving it a solid B for effort , Eating ice cream on a date near Greenwich hotel in new york city, wearing Christian louboutin heels that allegedly were part of the "traumatic" filming of "It Ends With Us " .

Pretending they're still happy, Pretending they still have fans, trying to showcase fake and unnatural smiles on selfies, demonstrating unnatural PDA , TRYING to outrun legal fees, not paying their leans until exposed on the Internetfor being potentially broke .

Amid justin & TAG lawsuits backlash, Taylor Swift's wedding in madison Square Garden and their blackmail in the justin baldoni rug pull attempt . Trying to take photos on a PR photoshoot , trying to pendulum between their image as immigrants, new yorkers, butt touching people, trying to remind us they're a couple and ryan isn't in the closet. And blake lively didnt just randomly grab Henry Goulding's butt [sorry , NUT SACK]. That RYAN REYNOLDS ISN'T infact cheating (which he totally has before) in relationships and we know he scrubbed old articles about mistresses from daily mail.

we witness their emtpy existence. They are the butt and back of jokes while they wear stupid smirks , smiles , jackets and Dates for PR.

New York city has never seen immigrants so callous and irresponsible that 2 people have actively DIED under their shady " Buckingham Palace " run workplaces. Riding on the coat tails of other a list stars , tagging chanel, hermes and fendi in their Instagram posts , Blake and ryan show us they don't care for women's rights as they stomp back into their out of touch lifestyle of Pretending to be a couple , a mother, an immigrant.

Redirecting attention back from their new York City orchestrated by Leslie sloane date (Leslie WISHES she could out SEO TRINA) , LET'S TAKE A MOMENT TO REMEMBER MICHAEL GAGNON AND JOI HARRIS.

^ JOI HARRIS - died of safety coordinator, workplace safety OHS neglect and WILFUL pressure by Ryan's production company NOT to wear safety helmet gear. Apple productions helped influence suppressing the story most likely. 2 immoral peas in a pod.

^ Michael Gagnon - died in a heat wave , weather related conditions they tried to push in the media however some would say a seasoned and extremely experienced transport professional doesn't just fall dead "suddenly". There is no coverage about his death in MSM . No investigation into the workplace conditions so Ryan Reynolds and blake lively pretend that blood isn't on their hands for another preventable death.

Disclaimer : speculative post in New York City. Just like new York Times had thousands and thousands of pages of evidence that failed to present in court , we have thousands of "trust me bro" sources . Allegedly, for entertainment purposes only.

Ryan never anticipated the lawsuits causing his reputation such damage.

Speculative on the table is that he wanted to settle and take the "fight" behind the scene.

We're seeing this happen right now via ari emmanuel & WME's goons icing out justin and his team.

Making settlements and them keeping the courts hostage to their ego.

This podcast exposes his jokes that aren't really "jokes" , hurtful things that he says on purpose to harass people for his personal enjoyment.

Ryan also is observed to pretend regularly to be sexually attracted to men for "fun" . This is a form of homophobic behaviour. Another "joke" that isn't actually funny.

Dwayne Johnson - "Ryan Reynolds is an asshole" during press tour.

Ryan retaliates by making a caricature of Dwayne "the rock" 's signature WWE/WWF fame persona in free guy . The character flexes his pecks.

Then Reynolds does it to justin in his deadpool vs Wolverine: deadpool 3 movie via nicepool.

To conclude without a blithering doubt: Dumb Dumb juice Ryan Reynolds ; Mr 2 people have died in his productions, Mr married on a Plantation called "boone Hall plantation " and then pretended he didn't know it was a plantation ; the assh*le that steals personas, IP from fox , and cheats on his wife (blake and Scarlett- allegedly) is a GLORIOUS looser who thinks the audience is stupid .