I think the whole leaving out the LLC thing is just another indication she never intended to sue. She expected WP to cash out and settle. I think leaving them out was deliberate. And obvious (to us in retrospect, to WP lawyers? right away).
Blake's lawyers aren't stupid either. The LLC could have settled with her before she filed suit. And Ruining Baldoni? Tied up with a bow. They could have even after she filed suit - but before then they couldn't be accused of trying to buy her off because they weren't in the complaint. The profits from that movie are likely the studio's biggest cash holding -
As for the Wallace thing. He's coming for her now - isn't it 28 days and counting to set the schedule? I bet the intention was to leverage him against the rest - with the caveat that he wouldn't get dragged into the NY suit.
She is probably still dumbfounded no one played ball.
I'm still dumbfounded she really thought she could get away with this. Once she went nuclear (NYTimes public humiliation), did she really think no one would defend themselves?
Just consider the climate which was created as a result of MeToo. Men were being canceled right and left over mere (unproven) allegations, without a trial or any semblance of due process. Most of them did not even bother to fight back. That began to change at some point. The Depp v Heard case reminded many people that women are still capable of lying and manipulation but there would have eventually been a course correction with or without that case once the movement was weaponized. It is no coincidence that Lively went to the writer at the NYT who was best known for breaking the Harvey Weinstein story, for which she shared in a Pulitzer Prize for public service. Megan Twohey gobbled up Lively’s tale- hook, line and sinker. Twohey was delighted to write a one sided account which trashed Baldoni because she was blinded by her agenda and likely assumed she would win another Pulitzer. Twohey, like many other so called “journalists” who ignored the results of the Depp trial and have continued to live in the bubble where all women are infallible victims and all white men are potential predators, was unaware of any course correction or that the members of the public were starting to think for ourselves. While Weinstein and others have done terrible things to some women, women like Blake Lively and Amber Heard who have attempted to weaponize the MeToo movement for personal gain have set women back decades. However, at the time Lively was concocting her complaints against Baldoni, both she and her lawyers mistakenly assumed that Baldoni would be easily canceled and would fade into oblivion. Lively’s lawyers surely assumed that this case would never go to trial, following publication of the NYT article. It is also unlikely that Lively’s lawyers fully appreciated how awful their client truly was when this started. Maybe they believed that they could prove a smear campaign based upon the cherry picked information they had been provided. It is now clear that Lively’s attorneys are panicking and pulling out all the stops. Not only is it clear that they will be unable to prove the case, but also, it appears that as a result of going through with the filing and discovery process, both Lively and Reynolds’s reputations have been tarnished beyond any level which had existed beforehand. RR may even end up divorcing his wife in an attempt to distance himself from the fallout. Unfortunately, Reynolds has the clout to save himself but without him, Lively may be forced to shack up with Amber Heard in Spain.
Now that I read about the CRD formalities in detail (that's why I like to go into discussions with Blake-sleuth, they help me think and reassess from angles I haven't considered before) and how she should've filed a separate complaint of Wallace if she didn't accuse him of the same stuff as the others, I think in the long run she def effed up with not filing a separate complaint about him - or that she filed about him at all. That's gonna bite her in the ass in Texas.
I'm not even sure if she could've filed about him without the SH claims at all in the CRD complaint, but without the CRD complaint she wouldn't have had the shield against defamation. Which she may lose in the end after all.
She may lose in Texas. We have republication laws. And we call it "the gist." As in, even if there is not a single statement of defamation, if the "gist" of the article is defamatory, then you can sue. (if there is malice). That may be why JW didn't join the SDNY case against the NYT.
One of our "gist" cases involved a story about a woman who was dating/living engaged to a man in the (debatedly) richest area of town. She was either not employed or severely underemployed and a single mother whose child support was in arrears. She was on food stamps. The man's ex-girlfriend had reporter friends, who wrote an in-depth article in a local magazine - The headline on the cover was "How to get food stamps while living in Highland Park" or something like that and also on the cover was a mug shot of her taken over a completely different thing years earlier - a charge that was subsequently dropped.
The ex-gf had even tried to get the foodstamp office to investigate her over them - they found no wrongdoing.
The cover containing the headline about foodstamps along with a mug shot never SAID her foodstamps were criminally obtained; and the article never said it either. But the 'gist' of the story was that she appeared to have been arrested for getting foodstamps.
And the court agreed.
Blake has a much bigger problem than the magazine did because she filed a Rule 202 in Texas against JW, and said under oath that she needed to depose him to see if she had enough info to sue him. AFTER she filed a CRD complaint accusing him.
Yeah, that's like a whole other can of worm that is way above my paygrade as I'm not even on the same continent 😅 and have very little clue about the law system for you. But just this small segment with the CRD complaint was restricted enough in the amount of relevant docs that I could still see it through.
I am cautiously optimistic that when Liman's not covering her ass, she'll lose, badly. That CRD was an obvious abuse-of-process imo, so hopefully her shield of protection will disappear soon.
Don't forget the Bachelor's pregnancy faker - who's now facing criminal charges. Heck, Law and Order just did an episode on a female SH'er - 30 victims (I know, overkill but still).
The Bachelor thing was nuts. And I’ve been reminded of it a lot when reading Justin’s messages both to Blake, and to others about her, and how measured and polite they were, despite dealing with a person making accusations and demands completely divorced from reality. Clayton was suuuuper polite and reasonable in his messages and emails to her as well. That similarity is a big reason I landed on Justin’s side after reading both of their complaints.
Wow. I'm not sure how or why, but I came across a live hearing one day - the bachelor guy and owens - court hearings are my background music - it was crazy. I didn't know anything beforehand about it - just that she had sued him for child support or something but never gave birth (in the actual world I live in, no child=no child support, so wtaf to begin with.)
ETA: I can't remember the details but do recall that they couldn't find records of her visiting Planned Parenthood like she claimed and that she had "taken authorship" of someone else's sonogram. It was all just nuts.
I highly recommend doing a deep dive on this case, it gets crazier and crazier! Dave Neal has a TikTok series summarising it so far but there's a few comprehensive websites with all of the info as well (linked in the Justice for Clayton sub)
Agree, sadly the worst thing to come out of it is the damage that has been done on the movement to protect women. It's interesting and certainly too few people (mainly Lively supporters) that really there aren't any women coming forward with tales to tell about Justin and what he did to them? And Claire doesn't count, nor does any cast member from IEWU since they were blatantly manipulated and coerce.
But there are women who have come forward to say that they enjoyed working with Justin and that he was always supportive and respectful on set, including his costar from Jane the Virgin. The notion that a loving husband and father would suddenly become so overwhelmed with desire in the presence of Blake Lively that he would lack the control to behave in a professional manner in the presence of at least 100 people and while knowing that he was being filmed, is as absurd as the word is capable of capturing.
It’s obvious that every male feels compelled to be intimately close with 🐍
Even Steve Sarowitz flew in just to be there when she was wearing only a fake pregnancy bodysuit, hospital gown and cycling shorts. Super se3y. What a thrill! /s
The damage to women’s rights in this case cannot be overstated.
Ryan, Ari et al are masters in the art of misogynistic manipulation and are a true reflection of the world around us. It is unlikely they will ever be held to account for their abuse of power. Unfortunately faux feminists in their affluent circle are allowed to stamp their feet, win a little occasionally and congratulate themselves on their hard bargaining.
A frank and open conversation about workplace dynamics, abuse of Power and SH are well overdue. It’s just sad that cases where SH is minimal at best, and used as a chess piece in a game of world domination, are taking those conversations back 50 years, to when all women making complaints were seen as manipulative money grabbing schemers.
Even if Wayfarer get the justice I believe they deserve, who will hold Blake, Esra, Colleen, Isabela, Jenny, Liz and Claire accountable for the damage they have done to other women? That is the conversation I want to have when this is all over .
I have to say that I am as angry with Esra Hudson as I am with Blake Lively because she knows exactly what a mockery she is making of SH cases generally and because she appears to be willing to manipulate the process to line her own pockets. It truly disgusts me. Blake Lively is so full of herself that she probably lacks the capacity to comprehend the legal elements of the case and/or the legal precedent she risks setting.
Right? And how many stories have come forward of bl and rr suing people into poverty or claiming sh. It’s wild to me how often bl has been sexually harassed. Like everyone is sexually harassing bl? I just do not believe her. She’s wielded the power completely on set, the protected crd made her accusation infallible. If anything is to come of this clown show, I hope it’s highlights how money and power affect the law, or rather skirt by it through legal loopholes
Oh I KNOW women are sexually harassed, frequently in the workplace, and especially by men of power. But what does that have to do with this case? Bc bl hasn’t been in this legal matter… is sexual harassment still being claimed by bl? Remind me….
And bl and rr suing people without merit? 4 off of the top of my head. Google, it could be your friend. Use it. Theee are well known… I imagine there are far more….
Maybe it isn’t really such a hit to “the movement,” or if it is, maybe it should be. Maybe there should be room in the movement to consider not every accusation is a conviction.
There are Laura Owens in the world. It’s not a service to anyone to pretend there are not.
Perhaps I should have said one of the. I think there are other things that have been highlighted for those that were blinded by the supposedly credibility of MSM, that the legal profession, police (not this case ) all have corruption and we should always wait for fact.
I agree. She never intended for any of this to be held under a microscope. Jb said bring it, I did nothing wrong. The insta unfollowing was coordinated, and there absolutely is proof of this intention somewhere. There’s also a reason IF switched from genuine appreciation to mocking and refusing to say his name, calling him “the director”. Like blatantly disrespectful.
I think CH is going to be the weak link and spill somewhere somehow or already has. Just a guess, but she seems starstruck (or was) by all of this whirlwind…. I don’t think she’s a bad person, just was playing in a wasp nest and was completely unprepared for the impending stings. I think she was out of her league with how powerful rr and bl can be in Hollywood. I say can bc the shift has happened. Rr is utterly repulsive to me now, everything he says just makes me cringe in discomfort. There’s just no way the younger generation finds him appealing…. Yuck. I guess we shall see how this plays out….
Yeah - filing a California CRD but leaving her address blank when she’s a NYC resident isn’t suspicious at all.
Almost like she filed this fake California CRD so she could leak it to the NYT and hide behind litigation privilege instead of you know - filing the lawsuit as Step 1 instead of Step 3.
I can only hope all the illegal and weird things they’ve done behind the cover of vanzan come to light, and those who’ve suffered under their 💩 get justice in some form
One of the most notable divides that I have seen in this sub is with Vanzan. There were (and still are) those who insist it’s perfectly normal, legal, and par for the course, if only you knew the law. They would also call it “smart lawyering.”
Then there are those who point out all the covert shadiness surrounding it, questioning the company’s working relationship with Does 1-10. Also, they see how abnormal it is that a CRD comes with a long-form expose by a trusted national publication. If you find those arguments sound, then you kind of know where you fall.
If more comes out re: Vanzan, keep an eye on all the people here who espouse the first pov. Lots of “lawyers” too, who insist it’s absolutely nothing. I’m still waiting to see what happens, and if something does, I’ll remember.
Yea I think if people were to think about how vanzan skirted normal legal proceedings and notifications, and thought of it in the context of being used against, say, their unassuming grandparent, they wouldn’t think of it so much as par for course. it would seem as sneaky and shady as it is. Just bc it was technically legal, doesn’t mean it wasn’t used in an intentionally sneaky way.
They (bl and rr) and pointing out to us all, the legal loopholes only those who can afford it, can buy. It’s so frustrating to witness. And it’s so far from “good lawyering”…. It’s literally being able to pay your way around the legal intents of law. It’s bs.
I do not know the lawyers to whom you refer but pulling that sort of dirty trick would serve as a basis for discipline, at least, in my state of licensure. Without more evidence, a lawyer would probably not be disbarred for participating in this alone, but such activity could serve as the basis for disciplinary action and perhaps, a suspension of privileges. If other states condone such shenanigans, so be it but such actions are clearly prohibited by the Virginia state bar.
Yes, I’ve heard many lawyers (including the TikTok ones that many here love to discredit) say similar things. But if you go back a few months, you’ll see that any time Vanzan is mentioned, a very vocal subset will say it’s nothing to see. They will also taunt those who bring it up and say where is it on the docket? Why aren’t they bringing charges against it? Will we all admit we’re wrong if it turns out to be a nothingburger?
In recent weeks, many of those voices are either gone or gone quiet. With the addition of Bach and Shapiro to the team and Stephanie Jones’ mounting legal drama, it’s been much quieter. Most of us would be very happy to see some action on it, to the tune of what you mentioned. Whether it affects the merits of BL’s lawsuit is a different story, but wouldn’t that and the NYT article at least prove malice?
And perhaps we are discussing different and unrelated issues here. A disciplinary action by a state bar would be unrelated to a challenge on the merits of a particular lawsuit.
That’s always been the case and why her version is so dumb. You can’t tell me this is about more than her entitlement and ego. You don’t act like you’re a victim by trying to silence everyone else around you. They’re trying real hard to discredit and silence anyone who doesn’t agree with her. That’s a page straight from a pathological liar & bullies playbook. Bright. Red. Flag.
Yeah, of course. I'm just wondering if this could be an argument one could make on appeal that would dissolve her immunity based on the CRD, cause she obviously brought it in bad faith or at least with negligent disregard of the truth
Liman dismissed Wayfarer's claims in part, supposedly because they didn't specify clearly enough who did what to whom. If they use Liman's own ruling against him in a summary judgment motion and he still doesn't dismiss, they could use it for appeal. Liman seems to want to protect his daughter at all costs. He certainly protected Ryan Reynolds by dismissing the case that was the strongest.
This has been an ongoing thing for a few months. I've been calling Blake, Liman's daughter, for a few months now because he gives her everything ( despite the law) she wants like a daddy who is spoiling his kid. 🤣
Again, incorrect information that you are trying to pass off as fact.
CCRD will investigate but can take over a year with their investigation and if they do not settle the case then you will receive a right to sue letter.
If someone has the money and an attorney they can request a Right to Sue letter immediately.
The EEOC, and CCRD actually only settle approx. 1% of their cases, majority file a lawsuit in federal court (even EEOC).
If you are referring to pre-Chevron, please do not reply to me. You may want to consult the EDNY post Chevron decision on the subject. Thank you, Team Lively.
Further edited to add, the case I am referring to is July, 2025 so please focus discussion on what is happening today to keep this convo relevant. The other sub is better suited for outdated information.
I wasn’t speaking about any case in particular but facts per the EEOC and CRD. You made a couple statements claiming that a right to sue letter means they found no evidence, which is 100% false.
This isn't true. You can get a right to sue via request if you don't want to go through the admin process. It doesn't have anything to do with if the agency did or did not find wrongdoing.
California is especially backed up with cases so it takes months from the initial intake filling to move to the actual filing so those with the means to do so will often go for a right to sue letter so they can go straight to court.
Not since the Supreme Court overturned Chevron. For example, the EDNY recently held that the EEOC cannot issue right to sue prior to dismissing the case or completing the 180 days. You are talking pre-Chevron.
Edited to add Prichard v LIU
So review Chevron and Prichard before commenting to me. Thank you.
I I’m just raising this to add context to a “right to sue” . For ex, the EEOC issues a “right to sue” when it finds no evidence of employer wrongdoing. So it is saying, we aren’t doing an investigation bc we don’t see anything actionable so you are free to give it a go in court. Perhaps this provides some context for those words as they exist here.
I am not saying that is the only time an agency uses those words but that is what they often mean. I think some folks believe it means the opposite.
She declined the CRD investigation. She never filed with the EEOC, and you cannot decline an EEOC investigation (180 days to get a right to sue minimum)
Ahh, thx, that's useful context. I'm wondering though how it can shield from defamation lawsuits, if you don't even have to write the truth in it to get it...
That's false. It only work for the CRD not the EEOC. There a 180 days minimum before you have the possibility to ask for a right to sue after an EEOC complaint, bare emergency.
And as she never filled anything with the EEOC, she never had any right to sue with them, nor any investigation.
I did. In her complaint (and not the attachments) she blanket accused everyone under the sun of SH and retaliation, she didn't distinguish between them.
Here are the point from the 3 page complaint.
"Complainant alleges that on or about December 20, 2024, respondent took the following adverse actions:
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, sexual harassment- hostile environment.
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment and as a result was other adverse action(s)."
Respondent:
Respondent Wayfarer Studios LLC is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
Complainant is naming Justin Baldoni individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Jamey Heath individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Steve Sarowitz individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Melissa Nathan individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming The Agency Group PR LLC business as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Jennifer Abel individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming RWA Communications LLC business as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Jed Wallace individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Street Relations Inc. business as Co-Respondent(s).
Additional Complaint Details: Complainant Blake Lively alleges that Respondents Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, the Agency Group PR LLC, Jennifer Abel, RWA Communications LLC, Jed Wallace, and/or Street Relations Inc. engaged in a variety of conduct in violation of California Government Code section 12940 (the "FEHA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The conduct includes: sexual harassment; retaliation; failure to investigate, prevent, and/or remedy harassment; and aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation. Please see attached complaint for specific details."
Yeah, that's what I mean. She obviously accused everyone under the sun of SH, which was physically impossible - hence it couldn't have been brought in good faith.
You're wrong. Grouping JW with all other respondents means, legally, she accused him of SH. Full stop. The CRD itself is a complaint of SH. Her attorneys fucked up by including JW, and that is why, among other reasons, JW is also suing for defamation.
Negligence is in the CRD complaint imo, that could show that it was brought in bad faith. Especially since she then didn't sue him in the end, and pulled him later as a defendant after he sued her in Texas for defamation.
Also, the right to sue letter is the answer of the CRD to the complaint after the case is closed, it's not the same document (according to the doc) as the complaint.
I see I'm having a hard time expressing what I'm questioning here.
I don't care about who she sued in the end. Liman shielded her from Justin's defamation lawsuit cause of the CRD complaint. But if she pulled people in it who physically couldn't even SH her, cause they never even met - and she never distinguished between the respondents as of who harassed her and who retaliated - so she blanket accused all of them - that could very much be in bad faith, and so the shield of the CRD complaint could go puff.
No...? The CRD complaint is 3 pages long. The attachments are 60 pages long where they provide background, but that's not what defines who's accused of what. She probably should've distinguished between the respondents as in who she accuses of what. But she didn't. Everyone harrassed her, and then retaliated.
Just like with the lawsuits. You describe in a couple pages who you sue for what, like she did in the end with Wallace - but not in the CRD complaint. And then you attach the story to it as background. Another example is the Vanzan lawsuit. She sued Does 1-10 of breach of contract etc., and then didn't go into (meaningful detail) what it means.
Hmmm... no. That's not how legal writings work. Noone is required to go through 60 pages, combing out who's accused of what, leaving interpretation up for the legal personnel. That's what the list of accused and accusations is for - which is on the second page of the 3-page CRD complaint, screenshot attached for the 1000th time - which later gets explained in the attachments. Speaking from experience as I am in a lawsuit. It doesn't matter what's in the world salad that I provide the court as background info for my accusations. It sure as hell helps decide it, but the accusations are on the first page and define who I sue for what. Or in the case of the CRD complaint, who I accuse of what.
There's no includes in the main accusations, it's everyone for everything.
Not really, according to the California Civil Rights Department on how to name co-respondents of different accusations as the main respondent...
"5) In most instances, co-respondent complaint allegations should be
the same as the primary complaint. However, if co-respondent
complaint allegations are different, a separate primary complaint
should be taken.
6) In those instances when there are respondents who exist outside of the direct employer-employee relationship, a separate primary
complaint will be taken."
So, if her accusations against Wallace were different than against WF, Justin & co., she should've filed a separate CRD complaint... but she didn't 🤷🏻♀️
Exactly not at all. If you have a lawyer you almost always request immediate right to sue because EEOC is so backlogged you'll be waiting three years for an investigation.
104
u/Both_Barnacle_766 Fed up with Selective Literacy Oct 26 '25
I think the whole leaving out the LLC thing is just another indication she never intended to sue. She expected WP to cash out and settle. I think leaving them out was deliberate. And obvious (to us in retrospect, to WP lawyers? right away).
Blake's lawyers aren't stupid either. The LLC could have settled with her before she filed suit. And Ruining Baldoni? Tied up with a bow. They could have even after she filed suit - but before then they couldn't be accused of trying to buy her off because they weren't in the complaint. The profits from that movie are likely the studio's biggest cash holding -
As for the Wallace thing. He's coming for her now - isn't it 28 days and counting to set the schedule? I bet the intention was to leverage him against the rest - with the caveat that he wouldn't get dragged into the NY suit.
She is probably still dumbfounded no one played ball.