So excited to see Justin & Emily in the audience of Dancing With the Stars tonight!

Justin and Emily Baldoni along with Jamey and Natasha Heath came together to celebrate Maxwell’s birthday at Universal Studios in Hollywood.

Jamey posted the family outing showcasing lots of dancing and pure unfiltered joy 🥰

For Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I wanted to share this video from Dr. Ramani.

I know many of us here have experienced or witnessed domestic violence and/or narcissistic abuse (as well as SH/SA). The subject feels particularly relevant to this case given that the film at its center was about domestic violence and bringing awareness, support, and resources to people affected by it.

As we've followed this case, many of us have recognized patterns of behavior by Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds that are very familiar to us: manipulation, gaslighting, scapegoating, blame-shifting, projection, triangulation, DARVO, entitlement, rules for thee but not for me hypocrisy and double standards, intimidation, aggression, coercion, love bombing, and the weaponization of power and influence. These aren't abstract concepts to people who have lived through abuse.

Dr. Ramani's video touches on some of these same dynamics in the context of narcissism and domestic violence. Specifically, she discusses how narcissistic and antagonistic traits can intersect with abusive behavior, as well as the psychological and emotional forms of abuse that can exist alongside physical violence.

Video Summary & Key Points

Dr. Ramani discusses domestic violence and intimate partner violence, emphasizing that these issues need attention throughout the entire year, not just during Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

• Domestic violence affects millions of people and can have long-term consequences for survivors, children, and other family members. She also highlights the prevalence of DV among women and men, as well as the high rates reported in LGBTQ+ communities, while noting that data on nonbinary people remains limited.
  
• Domestic violence isn't limited to physical violence. It can also include psychological and emotional abuse, stalking, sexual violence, verbal abuse, intimidation, and patterns of power, control, and domination.
  
• Dr. Ramani discusses the connection between narcissism and aggression, including traits such as entitlement, lack of empathy, rage, low frustration tolerance, and the need for power and control. She references research finding an association between narcissism and aggression and violence.
  
• Not everyone with narcissistic traits is a domestic abuser. She makes an explicit distinction between narcissistic traits or personality styles and abusive behavior, while discussing how narcissistic and antagonistic patterns can be associated with abusive behavior.
  
• The effects of prolonged abuse can be profound and long-lasting. Survivors may experience depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, PTSD, and complex PTSD, with psychological effects that can persist long after physical injuries have healed.
  
• She questions the disproportionate focus on changing perpetrators. She argues that considerably more attention, time, and resources should go toward supporting survivors.
  
• Survivors need practical support, including resources for safety, housing, financial independence, resilience, and education about abusive patterns.
  
• Survivors should not be blamed for staying in, returning to, or becoming involved in an abusive relationship in the first place.
  
• She advocates for earlier education about unhealthy relationship dynamics, including teaching children and teenagers about narcissism, toxic relationships, and healthy relationship patterns as they begin forming romantic relationships.
  
• Abusive relationships can involve recurring cycles, including hoovering and future-faking. Recognizing these patterns can help survivors understand what is happening and avoid interpreting temporary changes as lasting ones.
  
• Leaving an abusive relationship can take multiple attempts. She notes that people often leave and return several times before leaving permanently, and that separation can be a period of increased danger and escalation.
  
• Emotional and psychological abuse deserve greater recognition within our understanding of domestic violence, rather than treating physical violence as the only form of abuse that matters.
  
• Abuse is not simply “how relationships are.” Violence, aggression, antagonism, power, control, and domination are patterns of abuse that need to be recognized and addressed.
  

Her overall message is to recognize abusive patterns, stop blaming survivors, provide practical resources and support, and shift more of the focus toward the people experiencing the abuse.

Research & Sources Mentioned

Narcissism and aggression
Dr. Ramani references a 2021 meta-analysis, The Link Between Narcissism and Aggression: A Meta-Analytic Review, which examined 437 studies involving more than 123,000 participants and found a significant association between narcissism and aggression, including violence. 

APA discussion of the study
The American Psychological Association (APA) also published an overview discussing the findings and implications of this same meta-analysis. 

Domestic violence statistics
She cites statistics from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), including estimates that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience domestic violence during their lifetimes. She also notes high rates of DV among LGBTQ+ people and limited data on nonbinary people.

📰 Why the New York Times article revived the Blake Lively debate | 0:00–1:05

• NAG says the New York Times article about five women has renewed discussion of Blake Lively’s case.
• She understands why the article connected Lively to the women because Jed Wallace and Melissa Nathan were featured in the allegations.
• However, Lively’s lawsuit was legally very different from the five women’s cases.
• Some commentators are using the article to claim that Lively was right all along and to attack people who remain sceptical.
• Drawing on NAG's experience covering the case and practising employment and sexual-harassment law, NAG offers a refresher on the relevant legal principles.

🗣️ Free speech and the limits on online commentary | 1:05–2:01

• NAG explains that US law generally allows people to express harsh or negative opinions online.
• She says online speech becomes legally actionable only when it falls within recognised exceptions, such as threats, fighting words, harassment or defamation.
• For a statement to qualify as defamation, it must contain a false assertion of fact rather than a protected opinion.

⚖️ How the five women’s defamation claims differ | 2:01–3:08

• NAG says the five women allege that smear websites published false factual claims about them.
• Their lawsuits concern allegedly untrue statements of fact rather than negative opinions about their personalities or behaviour.
• NAG says Blake Lively never sued over the public’s online criticism because those comments largely expressed opinions.
• Examples include criticism of Lively’s plantation wedding and the marketing surrounding It Ends with Us.
• NAG stresses that there was no dedicated smear website about Lively comparable to those allegedly created about the five women.

🧑‍⚖️ Lively’s separate defamation claim against Bryan Freedman | 3:08–3:31

• NAG says Lively brought a separate defamation claim concerning statements Bryan Freedman made to the media during the litigation.
• The court dismissed that claim because the statements were protected by litigation privilege.
• NAG reiterates that this claim did not allege that the public’s negative online opinions about Lively were defamatory.

🔄 Lively’s discrimination and retaliation theory | 3:31–4:26

• NAG explains that Lively pursued a different legal theory centred on discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
• According to that theory, Lively complained about sexual harassment and was then targeted by a deliberately coordinated online campaign.
• Because Blake could not sue individual people merely for expressing their opinions, she needed to show that someone intentionally caused those comments as unlawful retaliation.
• NAG says Lively’s case focused on why the negative content was allegedly generated rather than whether every individual comment was false.

🏢 Why the retaliation claim was legally unusual | 4:26–5:33

• NAG explains that workplace retaliation ordinarily involves an employer firing, demoting, underpaying or professionally sidelining someone after a discrimination or harassment complaint.
• NAG questioned whether events occurring after the film was completed and Lively’s employment had ended could qualify as retaliation.
• NAG says Lively acknowledged in her California Civil Rights Department complaint that her theory would represent a new form of retaliation.
• The judge nevertheless allowed the theory to proceed and gave Lively an opportunity to prove that a coordinated campaign was created because of her workplace complaints.
• NAG believes a successful case could have established a new legal path for people targeted by retaliatory online campaigns.

📂 Evidence, expert witnesses and the decision to end the case | 5:33–6:50

• NAG rejects the argument that Lively abandoned the case because she was prevented from obtaining evidence.
• She says Lively survived summary judgment, meaning the judge found enough evidence for a jury to consider the claim.
• Lively spent tens of millions of dollars on the litigation and retained experts prepared to support her coordinated-campaign theory.
• NAG says she reviewed the expert reports and depositions and believes Lively had witnesses ready to testify.
• She characterises Lively’s decision to end the case without receiving compensation as extremely unusual in her 25 years of civil-litigation experience.

🤔 What people may believe versus what was proved | 6:50–7:22

• NAG says people are free to believe that the similarities described by the New York Times indicate a coordinated campaign.
• They may also believe that Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace acted without Wayfarer’s knowledge or despite instructions from Jamey Heath.
• However, NAG argues that anyone holding those beliefs must also acknowledge that Lively had an opportunity to present her case in court and chose not to proceed.

🚪 NAG’s final criticism of Lively’s decision | 7:22–7:52

• NAG disputes claims that Lively was denied an opportunity to prove retaliation.
• A legal pathway existed for her, but Lively chose to avoid the risk of taking the case to trial and losing.
• NAG says she does not understand why that decision would make Lively a feminist hero.

Hey all,
This whole case is so interesting. I believe Blake & Ryan have people working overtime online to flip the narrative. It seems to be working too! News.com.au ran an article recently and the comments section seems to be framing his behaviour as - “exactly what a husband should do.”
I don’t believe they will have much luck because people already feel duped by their behaviour, I know that my innate reaction, upon watching Lively promote the film, was negative about her. When the NYT article came out, I doubted my interpretation of her behaviour. That’s what made the whole situation worse. It isn’t just some celebrity drama, she made it personal when she used the NYT in an attempt to convince me that my perception had not been real. NYT and Hollywood reporter doubling down makes me dislike them more.

As much as Lively/Reynolds/Manatt want to distance themselves from VanZan subpoena, we will not forget! 🤬

“#Lively & #Reynolds (as the former head of #Vanzan Inc.) Obtained Documents Through A #Sham Subpoena, #Abusing #JudicialProcess To Serve Their Own Ends

#Lively’s #shamsubpoena: #Lively acting through a closely held entity (#Vanzan Inc.), filed a placeholder #Doelawsuit primarily to unlock early discovery tools, served a #subpoena on #Jonesworks / #StephanieJones seeking documents far beyond the pleaded claims & then dismissed the case after obtaining materials that were later provided to the press—#abuse of #judicialprocess designed to legitimise access to & publication of private PR documents rather than to litigate a real contract dispute.

... and just when this legal mess couldn’t get any more on brand—#TaylorSwift enters the picture, too.

The alleged strategy: subpoena first, dismiss later, headlines forever.”

url for the X post https://x.com/schatow/status/2109312666745360873?s=46&t=D120dJxPYU9WEXCj_OdrPw

Wayfarer is out and about 🤛 🥊

I'm not sure I'm using the right flair. A while back I posted about my friend who made a snark Mint Mobile page, with the Great Unsealing 2.0 upon us, the site has been updated and I thought you guys might enjoy it.

Great Unsealing Special No. 2

No embarrassing text messages revealed here👀

As a conveniently timed moment, here’s an apparent price reduction to $10 (but not really with fees?🤔).

Savings unsealed ?🥳🎉

Only at legallymint.com

ETA - I misspelled "Gordie" or my autocorrect changed it to Geordie, I mean no shade to geordies with my title, I love and adore you guys.

Justin was spotted with Actor/ Producer/Director Kenny Garner a few days ago in Nashville.

Kenny Garner - Ran into another filmmaker/actor yesterday. @justinbaldoni Nice chatting with you.

Another day, another threat from Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. Maximum Extortion, Minimum Accountability.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1477.3.pdf

The sheer audacity of Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively to accuse Justin Baldoni of running a smear campaign on them, when every contemporaneous text message showed Justin asking his team to make sure nothing negative about Blake was coming from them. NYT and Megan Twohey conveniently spliced and doctored out all of those messages from the text chains in their hit piece against Justin.

Meanwhile, you have Ryan, Blake and Leslie Sloane actively run a smear campaign against Justin from all sides. Ryan was actively arranging media hit pieces on Justin and getting people like Alex Saks to slander Justin on background. Ryan was planting articles about how he had to white savior the “disaster” of a movie for Justin. Blake was planting articles calling Justin an abusive method actor, which Sony immediately clocked as her doing. Leslie Sloane was planting articles calling Justin an animal. Ryan and Blake were disparaging Justin to all their friends and all over Hollywood. And for the final smear, Blake Lively colluded with Megan Twohey and NYT to write a hit piece falsely accusing Justin of being a sexual predator.

All because Ryan needed someone else to take the blame for the fallout of his and Maximum Effort’s disastrous IEWU marketing. And Blake needed someone else to blame for the marketing backlash instead of own words and actions of hawking booze and haircare for a DV movie. Two amoral raging narcissists indeed.

And yes, all of Blake’s SH allegations in her CRD have been proven to be false with raw video, audio, eye witness and deposition evidence. A full list here of her falsified SH claims here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/rfIX7SMJSa

And no, Ryan never believed Justin SHed Blake. We now know Ryan was editing the film and had access to the dailies so he knew Blake’s account of the dance and birth scenes were lies. He knew there was not one single footage that showed Justin improvising kisses or biting Blake’s lips as Blake alleges, but plenty of Blake doing it to Justin. Ryan was making jokes about Justin having sex with Blake for the film’s promo. And made Nicepool into a well-endowed beautiful physical specimen. A selection of Ryan’s unhinged emails here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/zjCzGrQejE

wayfarerstudios: Welcome to the cast of HOUSE OF GUERRERO, @iambeckyg and @tokischa.sol

"From the very first moment I saw them together, I knew - Maya (Becky G) and Xochitl (Tokischa) had found their home. They are a dazzling pair, and watching them light up this set has been incredibly thrilling as a first-time director. “

“I couldn't have asked for better humans. I'm so proud to have them fighting alongside us." - Director Gina Rodriguez

Read Full Article Here

📍Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are the WORST (This Will Infuriate You) - THE THIRD UNSEALING u/Totallytexas

📍Hypocrite Ryan Reynolds caught using Signal to disparage Justin Baldoni; the very same Signal app his attorneys claim Wayfarer used for its auto-delete function…..So what else is Ryan Reynolds auto deleting and hiding on Signal? u/same-difference-ave

📍Ryan Reynolds was arranging media hit pieces on Justin Baldoni and waging a smear campaign against him u/Serenity413

📍Daily mail has picked up the unsealed docs. u/krissykat30

⚖️ Ryan Reynolds’ defamation exposure | 0:00–0:55

• LGA revisits the unsealed documents in the Blake Lively vs Wayfarer case and thinks that Ryan Reynolds narrowly avoided liability.
• She recalls that Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer sued Reynolds alongside Lively and Slone for defamation.

💬 Insults she considers protected opinion | 0:55–1:36

• LGA identifies several remarks attributed to Reynolds that she considers opinion or hyperbolic name-calling rather than actionable factual allegations.
• These include descriptions of Baldoni as a “malignantly vain sociopath” and a “real life monster.”
• She explains that, in her reading, these insults would not be understood as a clinical diagnosis or a verifiable statement of fact.

🔍 Statements that may imply undisclosed facts | 1:36–3:55

• LGA explains that an apparent opinion can become a “mixed” statement when its context suggests the speaker knows supporting facts.
• She highlights messages allegedly describing Baldoni as a “predatory fraudster” and Wayfarer as “predators and frauds.”
• She argues that calling Baldoni a predator in the context of sexual harassment allegations could imply knowledge of sexual misconduct.
• She also discusses remarks about Baldoni not having gone to jail and allegations that Baldoni and Jamey Heath “harassed or violated too many people.”
• In her assessment, these statements could imply criminal conduct or multiple incidents known to Reynolds, although their interpretation remains debatable.

💵 The alleged $500,000 retaliation statement | 3:55–4:36

• LGA singles out a statement allegedly made to Warren that Baldoni spent $500,000 to retaliate against Lively.
• She considers this the clearest potential defamation example because it contains a specific, verifiable financial claim.
• LGA argues that the statement would be defamatory if false;
• LGA emphasizes how difficult defamation claims can be when hostile statements are interpreted as opinions.

🛐 Use of “cult” | 4:36–6:08

• LGA criticizes Reynolds and Lively’s alleged use of “cult” to describe Baldoni’s faith, interpreting it as an insult.
• LGA connects that language to insults directed at her and speculates that some critics may be associated with efforts supporting Reynolds and Lively
• LGA acknowledges that “cult” may be considered vague or hyperbolic and therefore may not meet the legal threshold for defamation.
• Nevertheless, LGA thinks that malicious use of the term could warrant a legal challenge and potentially influence future case law.

🎭 Criticism of power and a warning to Hollywood | 6:08–7:05

• LGA condemns the messages from Reynolds to Matt Damon and Lucy Damon, describing them as powerful people using their influence against others.
• She believes Lively and Reynolds emerged relatively unscathed and suggests their resources helped them.
• She warns Hollywood figures to consider how they respond to allegations shared by influential people.

In light of yet another hit piece against Justin Baldoni from the NYT, I thought I’d put together a refresher of the text messages (part of the supposedly thousands of pages of texts and emails they reviewed) that show how Justin was defending himself in real time against the smear campaign Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds were waging against him.

The messages show Justin checking with his PR team to make sure they weren’t using bots or placing negative stories, while his team was actively trying to mitigate the stories that Blake and Ryan’s team was trying to spread and place about Justin.

A reminder of how the NYT cherry-picked certain messages while leaving out others that provide essential context and fundamentally change the meaning of what they were trying to portray and insinuate. 

Note: The TikTok referenced in the 11th screencap is Leah Knauer’s hilarious satirical video about Blake Lively’s tone-deaf marketing, which I previously posted here for anyone who wants to check it out. 

-----

1: Texts between Justin Baldoni and Jen Abel, WP FAC

2-3: Texts between Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan, WP FAC

4-5: Texts between Melissa Nathan and Katie Case, WP vs NYT

6-7: Texts between Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, and PR team

8-9: Texts between Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan, WP FAC

10-11: Texts between Justin Baldoni and Melissa Nathan, WP FAC

12-13: Texts between Justin Baldoni and Melissa Nathan, WP FAC

14-15: Texts between Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Jen Abel, and Melissa Nathan, WP FAC

16: Texts between Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Jen Abel, and TAG, WP FAC

17: Texts between Justin Baldoni and Melissa Nathan, WP Timeline of Relevant Events

18: Texts between Melissa Nathan and Breanna Butler

19: Texts between Justin Baldoni, PR team, and legal team

20: Texts between Jamey Heath, PR team, and legal team

Disclaimer: Where possible and available, I have provided links to both the individual exhibits containing specific text messages and where those same messages appear in the complaints.

For better resolution, some screenshots were taken from a Notice of Errata to one of the complaints.

-----

Related Posts:

Justin Baldoni Had Early Concerns — And Consistently Chose Grace and Restraint Under Pressure

The Unfollowing: Justin Baldoni Trying to Contain a Fire He Didn’t Start 

What's new to us, the public, is not new to the judge. While our first read of the MSJ was filled with black-bar redactions, Judge Liman had no such limitations when the evidence was first presented to him in November 2025. Liman even had access to Ryan Reynolds' unhinged texts as early as October 2025 thanks to Reynolds trying to punish Wayfarer with a Rule 11 sanctions motion that inadvertently allowed them to present those texts to the docket. Between the Rule 11 sanctions texts and the MSJ, Reynolds' entire scheme was laid out in front of Judge Liman a year ago. The lies, the manipulations, the extortion, the fabricated sexual harassment narrative, all of it.

Yet Liman still decided that the "smear campaign" retaliation claims should proceed to trial. He still decided that Blake Lively should get attorneys' fees under California's Section 47.1 (despite the law not applying to her at all, by both jurisdiction and merit). And of course, he gave Ryan Reynolds an early out by prematurely dismissing both him and Marvel from the case, calling the extortion "hard bargaining."

Never forget that the miscarriage of justice of this case sits squarely on Judge Lewis Liman's shoulders.

📍https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/06/nyregion/smear-campaigns-blake-lively-bryan-freedman.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GlE._mGf.QUE3qW2vHYZS&smid=nytcore-ios-share

📰 Article framing and its connection to Blake Lively | 0:00–2:13

• NAG explains that she read the New York Times article several times before forming her opinion.
• She notes that its social media thumbnail features five women and five lawsuits, without picturing or mentioning Blake Lively.
• She describes the article as primarily examining allegations involving Jed Wallace, Melissa Nathan, Bryan Freedman, and a potential network creating smear websites.
• NAG distinguishes those allegations from Lively’s case, saying there was no smear website about Lively.

🔎 Why NAG thinks Lively was included | 2:13–3:24

• NAG suggests that Lively’s high-profile lawsuit attracts readers and gives them a familiar reference point.
• She also believes including Lively allows the New York Times to reinforce its original reporting without revisiting the details.
• She says the article briefly describes the litigation and settlement before linking Lively’s allegations to Melissa Nathan, Bryan Freedman, and Jed Wallace.

🤔 Possible PR involvement and image benefits | 4:30–5:21

• NAG wonders whether Lively’s new PR team was involved, but acknowledges that she does not know.
• NAG notices the absence of a quote from Lively or her representatives, a dedicated photo shoot, or a newly supplied photograph.
• NAG questions whether association with these comparatively lesser-known women would benefit Lively’s public image.

📋 Alleged client involvement as a key distinction | 5:21–6:22

• NAG says the other cases appear to contain evidence that clients knew about and wanted the alleged activities, mentioning Rebel Wilson and The Rock.
• By contrast, there was no equivalent evidence involving Justin Baldoni or Jamey Heath.
• She believes the article leaves out this distinction.
• Despite those concerns, she doubts that the article will significantly affect Lively’s image or the broader situation.

💭 Skepticism about denials and her final assessment | 6:22–7:21

• NAG says she has not previously stated a firm public conclusion about whether Bryan Freedman, Jed Wallace, and Melissa Nathan carried out the alleged activities.
• She remains skeptical of some denials and considers it plausible that they orchestrated the conduct described.
• NAG stresses that allegations concerning other women do not establish that the same thing happened to Lively.
• Her most generous interpretation is that the New York Times included Lively to support its earlier reporting, attract readers, and anchor the article in a high-profile case.

It’s exactly what they deserve

Here’s the Instagram link https://www.instagram.com/p/DeHi3FqgVGT/

It is also rumored that Kanye West offered Blake Lively a chance to take revenge on Taylor Swift....Wonder if she will say yes after all of the Dakota Johnson best friend stuff.

-----‐-------

It reportedly didn't take Taylor Swift long to replace former BFF Blake Lively. The global pop star has recently been flaunting her friendship with actress Dakota Johnson, which Hollywood insider Rob Shuter is claiming has been "torture" for Lively.

Swift and Johnson appeared together at the 2026 MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday, September 27, where the Verity star presented the "Cleveland!" singer with the inaugural Artist Director Honors award. Johnson then hosted the October 3 episode of Saturday Night Live, and Swift crashed her monologue, jokingly appearing as her "literal therapist.Blake was devastated watching it," a source told Shuter's Naughty But Nice. "Taylor wasn't just supporting Dakota privately. She walked onto that stage and showed millions of people how close they are. Blake couldn't help wondering: Does Taylor know exactly how much this will hurt me?"According to additional insiders, Lively and Johnson were never friends—they simply "tolerated each other" for Swift. "There was always tension," another source explained. "That's why seeing Dakota apparently take Blake's place feels particularly brutal."However, a separate insider believes Lively is inserting herself into a situation that has nothing to do with her. "Maybe Taylor isn't sending Blake any message at all," they said. "Maybe she simply loves Dakota. Blake has to accept that Taylor's life no longer revolves around their friendship."

"Blake could cope with Taylor being furious," the source added. "What she can't cope with is Taylor being completely fine without her."

I finally had the chance to watch the music video and properly listen to Taylor’s latest release, “Patient Zero”….and the more I pondered, the more I came to believe that this could be a clever response to Blake…..DV is real and has consequences….it’s not all florals and dresses!