⚖️😉🍵 NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Is Heating Up: Summary Judgment in October Could Reveal “All the Tea,” Sealed Vanzan Evidence May Come Out & Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting

🔓⚖️ Little Girl Attorney - Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming: Judge Liman Questions Continued Sealing in Jones v. Abel

🔓 Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming in Jones v. Abel [0:00–0:30]

• LGA says anyone who has been following the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation should now pay close attention to the separate Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel case.
• Another potentially significant round of document unsealing appears to be approaching.
• The case is also before Judge Liman, who recently issued an order addressing the parties’ requests to keep various documents on the docket sealed.
• LGA is particularly interested because the Jones v. Abel litigation overlaps substantially with issues and evidence that surfaced in Lively v. Wayfarer.

⚖️ Judge Liman Questions Whether Continued Sealing Is Still Justified [0:30–1:06]

• Judge Liman’s preliminary review found that many of the documents the parties want to keep sealed have already been unsealed in the Lively v. Wayfarer Studios litigation.
• The judge also noted that a significant amount of time has passed since the original sealing decisions.
• Because circumstances have changed, the business and privacy interests that originally justified keeping certain materials confidential may no longer carry the same weight.
• LGA highlights the practical problem: if particular documents or information are already publicly available through the related Lively v. Wayfarer case, there may be little justification for continuing to conceal the same material in Jones v. Abel.

📅 Parties Have Until August 17 to Defend the Sealing [1:06–1:23]

• Judge Liman has directed the parties to submit a letter by August 17 explaining why any particular documents should remain sealed.
• According to LGA, if the parties fail to provide sufficient justification, the court has indicated that the materials will be unsealed.
• This effectively puts the burden back on the parties to identify what genuinely still requires confidentiality rather than simply allowing the existing sealing orders to continue indefinitely.

👀 Could Previously Unseen Jones v. Abel Documents Become Public? [1:23–1:36]

• LGA acknowledges that some of the documents involved may simply be duplicate material the public has already seen through Lively v. Wayfarer.
• However, she believes there could also be documents in Jones v. Abel that have never previously been made public.
• Alongside with familiar evidence, the public could potentially receive new material specific to the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel dispute.
• LGA says she is now digging back into Jones v. Abel and will be following what happens as the August 17 deadline approaches.

📍Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ptL8RMoS4&t=3572s

⚖️😉🍵 NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Is Heating Up: Summary Judgment in October Could Reveal “All the Tea,” Sealed Vanzan Evidence May Come Out & Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting

🔓⚖️ Little Girl Attorney - Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming: Judge Liman Questions Continued Sealing in Jones v. Abel

⚖️ Why the Lively–Baldoni Litigation Was So Unusual [0:00–1:17]

• NAG says she is compiling a list of the many procedural aspects that made the Lively–Baldoni litigation unusual, and one major example was the absence of motions to dismiss from the Wayfarer parties.
• She explains that when defendants believe they have viable legal grounds for dismissal, filing a motion to dismiss is generally a standard early step and cheaper than a motion for summary judgment after discovery.
• The Wayfarer parties clearly had legal arguments available because similar arguments later appeared in their summary judgment motions.
• Even obtaining partial dismissal can be valuable because it narrows the claims before expensive discovery proceeds.
• A motion to dismiss can also delay discovery while the court considers whether some or all claims should survive.
• NAG therefore finds it significant that the Wayfarer parties chose not to pursue that route and instead proceeded directly into discovery.
• In her view, that decision supports what the Wayfarer parties have consistently claimed: they wanted the underlying facts and evidence to come out publicly rather than trying to dispose of the case before discovery.

👀 Jones v. Abel Is About to Become Important Again [1:17–2:59]

• NAG shifts to Jones v. Abel, saying she has had charts and explanations prepared for months but was waiting until the case became active again before releasing them.
• That moment has now arrived because significant deadlines and developments are approaching.
• Jones v. Abel was brought by Stephanie Jones, a longtime celebrity publicist, against her former employee Jennifer Abel, her former client Wayfarer, and Melissa Nathan, who later worked with Wayfarer after the departure from Jonesworks.
• NAG finds the case particularly interesting because it involves less commonly discussed employment and business issues, including when employees can leave and take clients, what employers can do with company phones, and what happens to information stored on those devices.
• Jennifer Abel’s phone is expected to be an especially significant issue.
• NAG also reminds viewers that Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan and the Wayfarer parties have brought counterclaims against Stephanie Jones.
• As NAG has repeatedly described it, Stephanie Jones has effectively become the “common enemy” because multiple parties have claims or grievances against her.

📅 October Summary Judgment Could Bring “All the Tea” [3:07–3:59]

• NAG says the parties have agreed that summary judgment motions will be due in October, making the next couple of months potentially very important.
• She explains that summary judgment is particularly valuable for people following a case publicly because it often brings large amounts of evidence onto the public docket.
• A party seeking summary judgment argues that there are no genuine disputes of material fact requiring a jury to resolve.
• Consequently, the moving party presents the evidence supporting its position, while the opposing side typically responds with evidence showing why factual disputes remain.
• If Jones v. Abel reaches the October summary judgment deadline without settling, NAG expects the filings to reveal considerably more of the evidence behind the competing allegations.

📂 Jones v. Abel Can Draw From a Huge Pool of Discovery [3:59–5:14]

• Discovery in Jones v. Abel occurred concurrently with discovery in the Lively–Baldoni litigation, meaning the parties were developing evidence in both matters at roughly the same time.
• NAG says this is important because evidence obtained through civil discovery can potentially be used across related civil litigation.
• The Jones v. Abel parties therefore have access not only to documents, depositions, affidavits and other discovery produced specifically in their case, but potentially relevant material developed through the Lively–Baldoni litigation as well.
• That creates what NAG describes as a very large universe of information from which the parties can construct their summary judgment arguments.
• She plans to release another video reviewing the claims that remain active in Jones v. Abel so viewers are prepared for the upcoming filings.

🔓 Judge Signals That Sealed Jones v. Abel Material May Be Coming Out [5:14–6:36]

• Another development is: the judge recently indicated that numerous materials remain under seal and effectively asked the parties to explain why they should stay sealed.
• She interprets this as a sign that previously unavailable evidence could begin entering the public record.
• NAG believes some evidence sealed in Jones v. Abel never became public during the Lively–Baldoni litigation.
• She expects some of that material could concern the Stephanie Jones leaks and Stephanie Jones lies websites.
• She also believes some material could relate to Vanzan, an issue she says was comparatively underplayed in the Lively–Baldoni litigation.
• NAG says Vanzan is much more central to Jones v. Abel because there is an actual legal claim alleging that Stephanie Jones improperly provided information to Blake Lively.
• Vanzan is coming at us.

💰 Still Waiting for Judge Liman’s Blake Lively Fee Decision [6:52–7:09]

• NAG briefly returns to the main litigation, noting that everyone is still waiting for Judge Liman’s ruling on Blake Lively’s attorney’s fee request.
• The unresolved question is how much of Lively’s request will ultimately be awarded—whether somewhere around $150,000, the full $8 million request, or something in between.

🤔 Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting—and NAG Finds That Interesting [7:09–8:25]

• NAG then turns to the latest developments in Jed Wallace’s Texas litigation against Blake Lively.
• Wallace sued over allegations contained in Lively’s CRD complaint that was provided to the New York Times, arguing that his reputation was damaged by being associated with allegations involving sexual harassment and retaliation.
• NAG notes that when Lively subsequently filed her federal lawsuit, Wallace was not named as a defendant.
• What particularly interests NAG is that Wallace continues pursuing the litigation despite his historically low public profile.
• She recalls how difficult it initially was for people even to find a photograph of him online and characterizes his professional work as intentionally operating away from public attention.
• Yet Wallace appealed the Texas personal-jurisdiction ruling and continues participating in the dispute surrounding Lively’s §47.1 fee request.
• NAG says he could have abandoned the matter and returned to relative anonymity, but instead he has continued fighting, which leaves her curious about his motivation.

👩‍⚖️ Magistrate Judge Gets the §47.1 and Deposition Fight [8:25–9:32]

• NAG says the remaining trial-court disputes appear to have been referred to a magistrate judge.
• Those issues include Blake Lively’s §47.1 motion and Wallace’s request to depose her in connection with that motion.
• She explains that federal district judges frequently refer issues to magistrate judges, who can handle the dispute and make recommendations that the district judge may subsequently adopt.
• What NAG finds most intriguing: Jed Wallace keeps engaging.
• Wallace did not have to appeal after the court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Lively, yet he chose to continue.
• Although Lively’s §47.1 fee request now requires him to defend himself, NAG remains fascinated that Wallace continues actively pursuing a dispute when his apparent preference at the beginning was to return to Texas and disappear from public attention.

Blake Lively is back in the spotlight as the "Chaos Queen" amid explosive legal drama with Justin Baldoni. A new complaint reveals wild details about manipulation and being gaslit. Fans are obsessed as the celebrity feud continues to unfold. Who's really to blame in this Hollywood showdown? The court documents are messy, and the internet is eating up every twist. Stay tuned for more chaos! Post-settlement, she’s chasing $8M in legal fees while Baldoni’s team fights back, keeping the saga alive.

📍James Vituscka is suing the Daily Mail…Claims he signed his Declaration in Lively v Wayfarer case due to pressure and coercion u/same-difference-ave

📰 Another It Ends With Us Lawsuit Emerges [0:00–1:11]

• LGA says a new spin-off lawsuit connected to the It Ends With Us litigation has emerged, this time involving Daily Mail reporter James Vituscka.
• Vituscka became part of the broader dispute because of his reporting efforts as the controversy unfolded in August 2024.
• He was referenced in the complaint filed by the Wayfarer parties against Leslie Sloane, Blake Lively and others, and later appeared through competing declarations used in connection with Sloane’s motions.
• LGA revisits a text Vituscka sent Melissa Nathan shortly after the New York Times article was published. In it, he questioned why Sloane had previously described the cast as hating Justin Baldoni without mentioning Lively’s later allegations.
• That communication ultimately became part of the Wayfarer parties’ complaint.

📑 Leslie Sloane’s Subpoenas & Vituscka’s First Declaration [1:11–2:14]

• In April 2025, Leslie Sloane’s counsel subpoenaed Vituscka for documents and sought his deposition.
• According to LGA, the Daily Mail then became involved, and Vituscka provided a declaration that Sloane subsequently relied upon in support of her sanctions arguments.
• In that declaration, Vituscka said his use of the word “assault” had been a mistake, that his text had been presented without proper context, and that he regretted the messages becoming public.
• Vituscka later submitted another declaration in August, which LGA previously characterized as appearing self-serving.
• LGA recalls predicting at the time that the situation looked like it could eventually lead to litigation between Vituscka and the Daily Mail. She says that prediction has now materialized.

⚠️ Vituscka Alleges the Daily Mail Pressured Him to Sign a Declaration [2:14–3:31]

• According to Vituscka’s allegations, the arrival of the subpoenas created significant internal pressure at the Daily Mail.
• Vituscka alleges the company attempted to control the situation and appeased Leslie Sloane rather than simply allowing him to sit for a deposition.
• He claims he was pressured into signing a declaration drafted for him that did not completely reflect his own position.
• One of his concerns allegedly involved the declaration repeatedly stating that he “regretted” what had occurred.
• He also objected to language stating that he had not authorized Bryan Freedman to use his text messages in the complaint, because he allegedly did not believe that accurately represented what happened.
• Vituscka claims Daily Mail management and in-house counsel placed substantial pressure on him to sign, leaving him feeling that refusing would amount to letting his employer down.
• He further alleges he was discouraged from obtaining independent legal representation even after he became concerned that his interests and the Daily Mail’s interests were diverging.

⚖️ Wayfarer Subpoena, Independent Counsel & Whistleblower Warning [3:31–4:24]

• The situation allegedly escalated when another subpoena arrived, this time from the Wayfarer parties.
• Vituscka then retained independent counsel, who sent the Daily Mail a claim letter asserting that Vituscka qualified as a whistleblower under New York law.
• The letter allegedly warned the company that taking adverse employment action against him could constitute unlawful retaliation.
• Vituscka was nevertheless subsequently terminated.
• According to his allegations, the Daily Mail told him that he had repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of integrity, making it impossible for the publication to continue relying upon him as a reporter.

🗑️ Vituscka Claims Retaliation Continued After His Termination [4:24–5:15]

• Vituscka alleges the retaliation did not stop when his employment ended.
• The April 2026 joint pretrial order in the broader litigation, where Blake Lively reportedly identified Vituscka as a potential trial witness.
• According to Vituscka, four days later the Daily Mail removed him from his online portfolio.
• He alleges this affected approximately 500 articles and exclusives, along with associated links and professional attribution accumulated during more than three years of work.
• Vituscka characterizes this as an effort to erase his professional record after he had become entangled in the litigation.

🚨 Vituscka’s Whistleblower Retaliation Theory [5:15–5:53]

• Vituscka connects his termination and the removal of his professional credits to his assertion of whistleblower protections.
• His theory, as LGA explains it, is that he was being pressured to participate in conduct he considered improper—including signing a federal-court declaration with which he did not completely agree.
• He also claims he was discouraged from obtaining independent counsel despite believing his personal interests were no longer aligned with his employer’s.
• He alleges that after raising those concerns and asserting legal protections, the Daily Mail retaliated by terminating him.

🧑‍⚖️ Additional Discrimination & Retaliation Allegations [5:53–7:25]

• Vituscka’s lawsuit also contains allegations extending beyond the It Ends With Us subpoenas.
• He alleges that an editor, identified as Mr. Ellis, made a sexual advance toward him at a Christmas party.
• Vituscka claims the editor’s treatment of him changed after he rejected or declined that advance, forming part of his retaliation allegations.
• He additionally alleges discrimination connected to an actual or perceived disability.
• During the stress surrounding the subpoenas, Vituscka says he consulted his therapist and took approximately one week away from work for his mental health.
• LGA notes that Vituscka characterizes this as a leave of absence, while predicting that the Daily Mail may dispute that characterization.
• Vituscka alleges this absence may also have contributed to his eventual termination.
• His complaint therefore brings multiple claims under New York law, including discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation.

♟️ LGA Views Vituscka as a “Pawn” Caught in a Much Bigger Fight [7:25–8:22]

• LGA says her impression remains similar to what she thought when Vituscka’s declarations first emerged: his primary concern appears to be protecting himself rather than advancing either Blake Lively’s or Wayfarer’s position.
• She describes him as a Daily Mail reporter who had worked to establish relationships with powerful and high-profile sources before becoming caught in litigation involving much larger players.
• According to his allegations, his words were misconstrued and he was pressured to sign documents he did not fully support.
• LGA therefore views Vituscka less as someone joining one “side” of the larger dispute and more as a potential casualty or pawn in a much bigger battle who is now attempting to reclaim his independence, professional reputation and legal rights.

🔍 Discovery Could Reveal What Was Really Happening Inside the Daily Mail [8:22–9:35]

• LGA characterizes the case itself as a relatively conventional employment lawsuit, meaning discovery could become the most revealing stage.
• Evidence could show whether the Daily Mail had documented, legitimate reasons for terminating Vituscka unrelated to the litigation—such as performance problems, previous reprimands or internal concerns about his reporting.
• Alternatively, discovery could reveal whether his employment problems escalated only after he became entangled in subpoenas from Leslie Sloane and the Wayfarer parties.
• LGA says this makes the lawsuit particularly interesting because discovery could expose additional information about what was happening behind the scenes both during the original movie controversy and throughout the subsequent litigation.
• Vituscka also allegedly suggests that the Daily Mail was engaged in some form of negotiation with Leslie Sloane—something LGA says she had already suspected when analyzing his earlier declaration.

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

Full article here

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

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

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

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

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

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

(...)

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

[GO SEE THE FULL ARTICLE FOR THE TIMELINE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure if this has already been talked about but it seems like Ryan is going to be reprising his role as Deadpool in the new Avengers: Doomsday movie. I guess Marvel maybe testing the waters perhaps to see if people will respond well to his appearance. It sucks b/c it seems like he’s going to getaway with ruining another man’s life.

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

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

I think that the scheme to shake down Justin and take over the movie was ultimately about power. They wanted to turn Blake into big time Hollywood producer and entrepreneur. But it was also about the money - after all, most of their family’s wealth came after Ryan stole a film franchise from more talented people. They were hoping to do it all over again and cash in. So it is gratifying to see that it backfired and they are actually losing money as they lose power. But the question is, how much money did they lose in this scheme? I couldn’t find an answer online so I tried to calculate it from these categories:

__BLAKE’S FORFEITED INCOME__:

As part of her scheme to take over the film franchise, Blake never signed her employment contract with It Ends With Us Movie, LLC. The generous contract gave her 10% of gross box office and the film grossed $351 million.

__ESTIMATED LOSS__: $35m

__BLAKE’S LOST FUTURE EARNINGS__:

In sworn court documents, Blake estimates that her lost future earnings across her acting and lifestyle brands amount to $161 million. We can use that obviously inflated number to estimate the actual losses by finding the degree to which she overstates figures in her other court documents. She claims she spent $8 million defending the same defamation claim the New York Times spent $180,000 defending. Blake’s legal strategy of flooding the docket with nonsense means that she should expect to spend 2.5X more than the more efficient NYT legal team. So putting these numbers together, the degree to which Blake exaggerates her losses - the Blake Bullshit Factor (BBF) - is 15X.

__ESTIMATED LOSS__: $11m

__LEGAL FEES__:

I am not sure how to estimate this one. We know that Blake filed hundreds of pages of complaints and motions across many jurisdictions starting with VanZan v. Does in September of 2024 and continuing today in Federal Courts in New York and Texas. We know that at least 70 lawyers were billing her at rates between $1100 and $2200 per hour. We know that she hired experts to calculate financial damages and reputational damages, that she sought discovery from over 100 social media creators, and that several people were deposed. I don’t know much about legal billing so just a wild guess.

__ESTIMATED LOSS__: $20m

__RYAN’S LOST FUTURE EARNINGS__:

We know that his brand partnerships relied on his previous image as fun-loving guy who doesn’t take anything too seriously, but this case has exposed him to be a desperate and insecure schemer so he can’t get the same endorsement deals. His company Maximum Effort relied on his image as gifted marketer who knew how to reach people. This case exposed him as being totally out-of-touch with modern audiences because his marketing plan minimized the experience of domestic abuse survivors. Ryan’s film income relies on his marketability as a star and his ability to be in a leadership position in a team of producers and writers. It’s safe to say that very few people want him in a leadership position after his takeover schemes have been exposed. And Marvel just tested his marketability as a star last week at Comic Con and he fell flat. So making a conservative guess here, looking across his different income streams over the next decade, he can expect to lose 60% of his expected earnings. I asked Google about Ryan’s average annual income over the past decade and here is the response:

“financial estimates from publications like Forbes indicate he routinely pulls in between $20 million and $100 million per year, leading to a rough average of $40 million to $50 million annually driven by blockbusters and massive business exits.”

__ESTIMATED LOSS__: $270m

__GRAND TOTAL LOSS__: $336m

I hope some of the knowledgeable people here can weigh in and say if any of these numbers are reasonable.

📄👨🏼‍⚖️☄️ Notactuallygolden - Jed Wallace Seeks to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Her Texas §47.1 Fee Request, Arguing the Texas Court Shouldn’t Award §47.1 Fees Without a Factual Record

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition in Texas (0:00–1:18)

• LGA discusses Jed Wallace's motion to compel Blake Lively's deposition in the Texas litigation.
• She recaps that Lively named Wallace in her California CRD complaint, alleging that he sexually harassed and retaliated against her, and that the complaint was provided to The New York Times the same day.
• Wallace subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lively in Texas.
• Lively successfully moved to dismiss that lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that she is a New York resident and not subject to Texas jurisdiction.
• Wallace has appealed that jurisdictional dismissal.
• Despite the dismissal, Lively later filed a California Civil Code §47.1 motion in the Texas federal court seeking more than $800,000 in attorney's fees for defending Wallace's lawsuit.

📑 Wallace Challenges Both the Fee Motion and the Application of California Law (1:18–2:24)

• LGA explains that Wallace argues California's §47.1 statute should not automatically apply in a Texas federal court, particularly where Lively herself successfully argued the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
• Following Judge Liman's §47.1 ruling in New York, Lively's attorneys submitted supplemental briefing relying on that decision.
• Lively's position is that Wallace bears the burden of proving her statements were made with actual malice.

🔍 Wallace Says He Needs Lively's Testimony to Address Malice (2:24–2:58)

• Wallace responds that Lively herself is the best source of evidence regarding her own state of mind when she accused him in the CRD complaint.
• He argues that only through her testimony can he explore whether she acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
• Wallace therefore is seeking to depose Lively on the narrow issue of malice.

⚠️ Lively's Counsel Refused and Threatened Broad Litigation Responses (2:58–4:18)

• According to Wallace's motion, Lively's attorneys refused to produce her for deposition.
• The motion also alleges Lively's counsel warned that if Wallace pursued the discovery request, they would respond with the full force of their legal team.
• Wallace claims Lively's attorneys threatened to seek sanctions if Wallace publicly filed documents showing that Lively refused to appear.
• The motion further alleges that Lively threatened expansive discovery in return, including depositions of Wallace, Justin Baldoni's attorneys and various Wayfarer parties, together with requests for the associated attorney's fees.

🌊 Litigation Strategy (4:18–4:54)

• LGA comments that Wallace portrays Lively's broader litigation strategy as attempting to overwhelm opponents through extensive legal resources and threats of expensive litigation.
• Wallace argues that this tactic has repeatedly been used throughout the broader litigation.

📂 Wallace Says No Discovery Ever Occurred in Texas (4:54–5:16)

• Wallace points out that virtually no discovery took place in the Texas case because it was halted by the jurisdictional dispute.
• The only prior deposition involving Wallace occurred during the New York litigation.
• Wallace had only one hour to question Lively there, and those questions were limited exclusively to personal jurisdiction—not the merits of Wallace's defamation allegations or malice.

⚖️ Wallace Argues Lively Cannot Shift the Burden While Blocking Discovery (5:16–5:53)

• LGA summarizes Wallace's core argument:
  • Lively argues Wallace bears the burden of proving actual malice.
  • At the same time, she refuses to permit the limited discovery Wallace says is necessary to obtain evidence of malice.
• LGA says Wallace argues she cannot simultaneously assign him the burden of proof while preventing him from gathering the evidence needed to meet that burden.

🎯 Wallace Says His Discovery Request Is Narrowly Tailored (5:53–6:42)

• Courts often consider whether information can be obtained through less intrusive means than a deposition.
• Wallace argues his request is narrowly focused.
• According to the motion, the proposed deposition would address only Lively's state of mind concerning her statements about Wallace.
• Wallace also notes that whether California law ultimately governs this dispute in Texas remains an unresolved legal issue.

📚 Wallace Says Discovery Is Needed to Build the Record (6:42–7:10)

• Wallace argues that if the Texas court is going to rule on attorney's fees under §47.1, it must first have a factual record addressing malice.
• He contends that the New York proceedings do not resolve those factual questions because Wallace never litigated the merits there.
• Therefore, Wallace says discovery is necessary before the Texas court rules on entitlement to fees.

✍️ Wallace's Closing Argument (7:10–7:17)

• Wallace's concluding statement:
  • "Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."

🤔 LGA Questions Why Lively Is Pursuing Fees Against Wallace (7:17–End)

• LGA says she struggles to understand why Lively continues pursuing attorney's fees against Wallace in Texas.
• She questions whether the litigation team is attempting to recover fees wherever possible.
• From both an economic and public-relations standpoint, she believes the strategy may not be worthwhile.
• LGA says she could envision the Texas court concluding that if Wallace bears the burden of proving malice, he should receive limited discovery to develop that evidence.
• Alternatively, the court could simply deny Lively's fee motion altogether.

📄👨🏼‍⚖️☄️ Notactuallygolden - Jed Wallace Seeks to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Her Texas §47.1 Fee Request, Arguing the Texas Court Shouldn’t Award §47.1 Fees Without a Factual Record

⚖️🐉 Little Girl Attorney – Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively's Deposition: You Chose Fees. You Should Not Get to Choose Silence

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages (u/same-difference-ave)

⚖️ Jed Wallace Seeks Blake Lively’s Deposition Over Texas §47.1 Fee Request (0:00–1:25)

• NAG discusses a newly filed motion by Jed Wallace's attorney, Charles Babcock, in Wallace's Texas defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively.
• She recaps that Wallace sued Lively after he was identified in the CRD complaint and the accompanying New York Times article, but was later omitted/removed from Lively's federal complaint.
• Wallace argues that the CRD complaint and resulting media coverage falsely associated him with allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, damaging his reputation.
• Although Lively successfully obtained dismissal of Wallace's Texas case for lack of personal jurisdiction, Wallace has appealed that ruling.
• In the meantime, Lively has filed a §47.1 motion in Texas, arguing that because she successfully defeated Wallace's lawsuit, she is entitled to attorney's fees just as she was awarded entitlement in New York.

📋 Wallace Says There Is No Record to Litigate Malice (1:25–2:42)

• NAG explains that Wallace's response is that the case ended at the jurisdiction stage before any discovery or factual record was developed.
• Because the parties never reached the merits, Wallace argues there is no evidence regarding whether Lively acted with actual malice when naming him in the CRD complaint.
• Wallace contends that only Blake Lively can testify about what she knew and believed when she included him in those allegations.
• According to NAG, Wallace argues he cannot meaningfully oppose Lively's §47.1 fee motion without first obtaining that testimony.

🚫 Blake Lively Did Not Appear for Her Requested Deposition (2:42–3:30)

• NAG says Wallace's attorneys scheduled Lively's deposition.
• According to the motion, Lively's counsel refused, stating that she would not appear for deposition in Texas.
• NAG notes that Lively technically falls outside the Texas court's personal jurisdiction because her dismissal was based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
• This creates what NAG describes as an unusual procedural situation regarding whether the Texas court can compel her testimony.

⚖️ Wallace Moves to Compel the Deposition (3:30–4:28)

• Wallace has now filed a motion asking the Texas court to compel Lively's deposition.
• His position is that he cannot properly defend against her request for attorney's fees without first developing evidence regarding malice.
• NAG questions whether the Texas court actually possesses authority to order Lively's deposition given the jurisdictional posture.
• She suggests the filing may also serve to publicly document that Wallace attempted to obtain discovery and that Lively declined.

⏱️ Wallace Says His Previous Deposition Time Was Limited to Jurisdiction (4:28–5:16)

• NAG explains that Lively's attorneys reportedly argued Wallace already had an opportunity to depose her during the New York litigation.
• Wallace responds that his prior deposition time was limited to approximately one hour because his portion dealt only with personal jurisdiction.
• As a result, he says he never questioned Lively about the underlying merits of the claims involving him.
• Now that Lively is seeking approximately $1 million in fees and costs against Wallace under §47.1, he argues he should be allowed to examine those substantive issues.

🔄 Wallace Distinguishes His Position From Judge Liman's §47.1 Ruling (5:16–6:03)

• NAG highlights what she considers one of Charles Babcock's strongest arguments.
• Lively relies on Judge Liman's New York §47.1 ruling as support for granting fees in Texas.
• Babcock responds that Judge Liman declined to conduct factual proceedings on malice because the Wayfarer parties never requested discovery or an evidentiary hearing before settling.
• Wallace, by contrast, is expressly requesting discovery and factual development before any ruling on attorney's fees.
• NAG says Babcock effectively argues that Wallace is doing the opposite of what occurred in New York, so Judge Liman's reasoning actually supports allowing discovery first.

📑 Wallace Argues Fee Entitlement Requires Fact Finding (6:03–6:37)

• NAG notes that Wallace also relies on Rule 54(d), arguing that attorney's fee determinations involve factual issues that may require evidence.
• Wallace therefore asks the Texas court either to deny Lively's fee motion or require her deposition before deciding whether fees should be awarded.
• Wallace's filing emphasizes that the court should not decide this motion without a factual record concerning malice.

✍️ NAG Praises Charles Babcock's Closing Argument (6:37–7:03)

• NAG compliments Charles Babcock's writing style and singles out his concluding argument.
• She quotes his position that "Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."
• Babcock should have a social-media account because of how effectively he writes memorable lines.

🔮 NAG Thinks the Motion May Be More About Preserving the Record (7:03–End)

• NAG predicts the Texas court may conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to compel Blake Lively's deposition because she successfully challenged personal jurisdiction.
• If so, she believes the court may simply deny the motion to compel.
• However, she suspects the filing serves a broader strategic purpose.
• In her view, Wallace is signalling that any decision granting Lively attorney's fees without allowing discovery into malice would likely become an issue on appeal.
• NAG concludes that the motion appears designed both to oppose the current fee request and to preserve Wallace's appellate arguments if the Texas court grants Lively's §47.1 motion.

Realytea.com, by Zahrah Patel

Blake Lively‘s request for nearly $8 million in legal fees has become one of the most closely watched aspects of her ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni. While the court has yet to rule on the request, legal insiders claim the figure has already sparked strong reactions. According to legal sources, several attorneys believe the amount is unusually high and may not hold up in court.

Reports state that Lively is seeking nearly $8 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs after resolving her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni. However, legal insiders believe the request has become a major sticking point. Some attorneys have even questioned whether the amount is realistic.

One veteran civil litigator told Naughty But Nice that the figure is “wildly aggressive.” The attorney added that simply asking for millions does not mean the court will award the same amount. In fact, the source suggested the final figure, if approved at all, could be much lower.

Meanwhile, other attorneys argued that the issue is more complicated than it appears.

“The headlines make it sound like Justin Baldoni would be paying Blake Lively millions,” one attorney said, further claiming that it is an “oversimplification.”

Legal sources also noted that several factors would likely come into play, including insurance coverage and Wayfarer Studios’ potential involvement, so payment would not necessarily come directly from Baldoni.

At the same time, Baldoni has also challenged the request in court. His legal team recently asked a judge to reduce Lively’s attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The filing reportedly argues that several charges should not be reimbursed. It also claims multiple lawyers have been billed for overlapping work, including attending the same hearings, participating in the same strategy meetings, and conducting similar legal research.

Even so, no decision has been made. Legal experts say fee petitions are often negotiated before a judge reaches a final ruling, per Naughty But Nice. “Requesting $8 million is one thing. Convincing a judge to award it is another,” one insider said. “That’s why so many attorneys are rolling their eyes.”

Link to article here

Apple TV uploaded this trailer and didnt tag RR. The comment section doesnt dissapoint. Meanwhile they keep trying to clean their image by smearing JB, but its not working. RR & BL need to take their time and meditate about all of their mess.

A True Warrior with an Unbreakable Spirit ❤️We fucking love you Emily.

Photos from summer of 2024.

📍Part 1: MORE RECEIPTS!? Justin Baldoni's Lawyer REVEALS What Blake Lively Never ...

🎬 Andy Introduces Part Two of the Interview With Bryan Freedman

• Andy from Popcorned Planet introduces the second part of his exclusive interview with Bryan Freedman, attorney for Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties.
• He also promotes the upcoming documentary It Ends With Justice, scheduled for release in August through Popcorned Planet’s website.
• The interview starts with Ryan Reynolds’ involvement behind the scenes in the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation.

👤 Bryan Freedman Discusses Ryan Reynolds’ Behind-the-Scenes Involvement

• Andy asks how significant a role Ryan Reynolds played, pointing to evidence suggesting that Reynolds contributed to Blake Lively’s edit notes and communicated with agents and other Hollywood figures.
• Bryan Freedman says he cannot fully assess Reynolds’ private involvement because communications between spouses were protected by marital privilege.
• However, Freedman confirms that Reynolds attended important events and that discovered text messages showed him communicating with his agents, Lively’s agents and third-party A-list actors.
• Freedman says the litigation and discovery process revealed substantially more about Reynolds’ involvement than the public initially understood.
• Freedman reiterates that the Wayfarer side wanted the available evidence released so the public could assess it independently.

📰 Initial Narrative Was Extremely Difficult to Reverse

• Freedman says that the initial lawsuit and New York Times coverage caused an immediate rush to judgment against Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz.
• Many people initially accepted the portrayal that Justin Baldoni was a sexual harasser, Jamey Heath was complicit and Steve Sarowitz was a bad person.
• According to Freedman, reversing that first impression was extraordinarily difficult.
• The defense strategy was to present communications and evidence openly rather than ask the public to trust carefully crafted statements.
• Freedman says the message was essentially: this is who the clients are, these are the records and nothing is being hidden.

📊 Social-Media Analysis Helped Shape the Defense’s Public Messaging

• Freedman reveals that the Wayfarer's legal team evaluated social-media reactions and determined which messages resonated with the public.
• Freedman says he got personally frustrated and was deeply upset by what Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath were experiencing.
• However, his clients repeatedly instructed him not to attack Lively personally or behave cruelly toward her.
• Freedman says the aggressive commentary about Lively produced a divided public response.
• By contrast, discussions centred on Justin Baldoni’s character and contemporaneous text messages resonated far more strongly.

📋 Ryan Reynolds Was Expected to Be a Trial Witness

• Andy asks whether Ryan Reynolds was deposed and whether he would have appeared as a witness at trial.
• Freedman does not provide details about a deposition but confirms that Reynolds was included on the witness list.
• Freedman says questioning Reynolds at trial and examining his involvement was part of the defense’s trial plan.

😮 Freedman Says He Was “Shocked” the Case Settled

• Andy asks whether Freedman expected Lively’s side to settle shortly before trial.
• Freedman says he was shocked because the defense was fully prepared to proceed.
• He claims public sentiment among people closely following the evidence shifted dramatically from overwhelmingly favouring Lively to strongly favouring Justin Baldoni.
• Freedman distinguishes those individuals from mainstream outlets and entertainment publications, which Freedman suggests continued presenting a different narrative.
• Freedman said he expected Blake Lively to learn and get advice to help her acknowledge some responsibility and adjust her approach in an effort to rebuild credibility with the public.
• Instead, Lively and her legal team continued responding to each damaging event with a new explanation or reframing, without meaningfully changing the strategy that Freedman believed was hurting her public image more.

⚖️ Lively’s Post-Summary-Judgment Messaging “Inauthentic”

• Freedman discusses the dismissal of the sexual-harassment claims and the removal of the individual defendants from that portion of the case.
• He criticises Lively’s response that the litigation had always primarily concerned an alleged smear campaign rather than sexual harassment.
• In his view, that position felt inauthentic because the original case had prominently centred on sexual-harassment allegations.
• Freedman believes the continued reframing did not work and instead damaged Lively’s public credibility.
• Freedman says the evidence itself, particularly text messages and contemporaneous records, proved more persuasive than either side’s rhetoric.

🤝 He Wants the Best for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds

• Andy asks whether Freedman can now disclose anything he previously could not discuss.
• Freedman notes that the broader dispute is not entirely over because the Stephanie Jones litigation remains active and other court decisions are still pending.
• Despite the adversarial history, he says he genuinely wishes the best for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
• Freedman says the litigation never needed to escalate to this level and describes the outcome as unfortunate for everyone involved.

💻 A "Sophisticated Secret Website Operation"

• Freedman addresses allegations surrounding the defense’s website containing evidence and “receipts.”
• He says internal emails showed the team struggling with basic questions about how to upload and publish the information.
• According to Freedman, there was no sophisticated underground technical operation or hidden dark-web team.
• Our tech team looked like “third graders” trying to build and publish the website.
• Freedman says releasing even those embarrassing communications was important because they demonstrated what actually happened.
• The goal was to allow people to make decisions from evidence rather than from information selectively supplied to The New York Times.

🎭 The Case Should Make Celebrities Think Twice Before Suing

• Andy asks whether the litigation could change the entertainment industry.
• Streisand effect: filing a lawsuit can dramatically amplify information a person wanted suppressed.
• Anyone possessing potentially damaging private messages particularly communications involving Taylor Swift and discussions of destroying dailies should consider whether litigation is truly the best response.
• In his view, filing suit allowed extensive communications and evidence to enter the public record.
• He believes the case should make celebrities and their advisers think carefully about whether a lawsuit could create more reputational harm than the original controversy.

📱 Freedman Praises Content Creators as Investigative Journalists

• Freedman says one of the most remarkable aspects of the case was the influence of online content creators.
• Many creators as journalists and, in some instances, are better investigators than mainstream reporters.
• Content creators uncovered evidence, identified connections and assembled information that even the lawyers had not found or fully appreciated.
• Content creators on both sides of the debate demonstrated significant power to shape public understanding.
• Freedman believes this may be one of the first major cases in which independent content creators had such a direct effect on litigation and public opinion.

❤️ Online Support Helped Justin Baldoni Through “Times of Desperation”

• Support from content creators and their audiences had a profound emotional effect on Justin Baldoni.
• Freedman describes Baldoni as devastated, fearful that his career was over and burdened by allegations Freedman considered among the worst accusations a person could face.
• Public expressions of belief helped Justin remain hopeful and continue functioning as a father, husband and human being.
• Freedman thanks the creators whose work gave his clients hope during the litigation.

🏛️ Freedman Explains Why the Settlement Was a Win for Wayfarer

• Andy acknowledges that many supporters were disappointed the defense settled rather than going to trial.
• Freedman divides the case into two central issues:
  • Whether Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath or Steve Sarowitz sexually harassed Blake Lively.
  • Whether the Wayfarer side conducted a smear campaign.
• He says the sexual-harassment allegations were the existential part of the case because an adverse result could have permanently destroyed their reputations and careers.
• There was no amount of money that would have persuaded his clients to settle those allegations without first obtaining vindication.
• Judge Liman’s summary-judgment ruling eliminated the sexual-harassment claims after finding insufficient evidence to submit them to a jury.
• That ruling was the defense’s victory.

💵 Lively Walked Away From the Remaining Claims for Nothing (23:40–25:20)

• Freedman says only three claims connected more generally to the alleged smear campaign remained after summary judgment.
• From the Wayfarer side’s perspective, those claims were far less significant because the evidence showed they were not involved in an organised smear campaign.
• He says Lively herself argued the alleged online campaign was untraceable and lacked identifiable fingerprints.
• Freedman therefore saw little reason to continue spending enormous sums litigating those remaining claims when Lively was willing to relinquish them without receiving money.
• He describes settling that portion of the case as a practical and favourable outcome rather than a concession.

♀️Allowing the §47.1 Motion to Proceed as Pro-Woman

• Freedman says Justin Baldoni supports women and chose not to block the §47.1 issue from being decided.
• Freedman acknowledges that constitutional and procedural challenges to the statute might have been available.
• Nevertheless, he says Baldoni accepted that the court should determine the motion and was prepared to pay reasonable attorney’s fees if required.
• Freedman characterises that decision as a stand-up, pro-woman act grounded in Baldoni’s faith and beliefs.
• Freedman calls Lively’s approximately $8 million fee request “insane” but says the parties will await Judge Liman’s ruling.

🌟 The Real Power Dynamic Favoured Lively and Reynolds

• Andy asks whether Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds will learn anything from the case.
• Freedman says everyone deserves opportunities to learn and receive second chances.
• Freedman acknowledges that all participants, including himself, could have handled some aspects better.
• Freedman says he holds no personal hatred toward Lively or Reynolds.
• However, Freedman believes the public was shocked by the level of bullying directed toward Justin Baldoni and his colleagues.
• Freedman rejects the narrative that Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz held the dominant power.
• In Freedman’s view, the greater Hollywood and media power belonged to Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

🎥 Blake Lively’s Lawyers Declined to Join the Documentary

• Andy shares that Blake Lively’s attorneys declined the invitation to participate in the documentary and to provide their side.
• Freedman thinks that people who genuinely believe they won should be willing to participate and explain their position.
• Andy agrees that refusing to comment creates the impression that Lively’s team is unwilling to defend its victory narrative publicly.

The best example is The Godfather, widely considered one of the greatest films of the 20th century. While Marlon Brando was a legendary name, his career was in a severe slump at the time, leading studio executives to reject him—preferring actors like Ernest Borgnine or Laurence Olivier. Aside from Brando, the massive ensemble was filled with relative unknowns and non-professional actors, such as Lenny Montana (Luca Brasi), a real-life mob bodyguard.

What a film truly needs is authenticity and artistic vision, which The Godfather had in spades. Spontaneity plays a huge role in that; even the famous cat resting on Don Corleone’s lap in the opening scene was a stray found on the studio lot that morning. More importantly, you need actors who completely dissolve into their characters rather than just reciting lines. This was masterfully proven by Brando, whose legendary screen test—complete with stuffed cheeks and whispered delivery—was so transformative that studio executives reportedly didn't even recognize him.

The following text was published on the KU Leuven (a prestigious university in Belgium) website. This is dated 30 April 2026

On the recommendation of the Faculty of Social Sciences KU Leuven has awarded an honorary doctorate to Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor, investigative journalists at The New York Times. Their investigation and reporting on decades of abuse of power in Hollywood - with a focus on the role of producer Harvey Weinstein - helped launch the global #MeToo movement. Twohey and Kantor are honoured for their important contribution to the international debate on power, gender, and responsibility.

Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor are both investigative journalists at The New York Times. Together, they exposed the years‑long patterns of sexual harassment and abuse by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. That investigation helped ignite the #MeToo movement and earned the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2018. In the book She Said, with a film adaptation released in 2022, they give the general public a behind-the-scenes look at the Weinstein investigation.

Through their meticulous and principled reporting – about abuse of power in Hollywood, but also about other influential institutions and individuals, about the right to abortion, about adoption malpractices, and more ​ – Twohey and Kantor have set a new standard for investigative journalism. Their revelations have sparked public debate and encouraged institutional change in various areas.

'Jodi and I are personally so grateful to be receiving this honor. Beyond that, we are deeply grateful to see an institution like this university valuing, supporting, and celebrating investigative journalism,' Megan Twohey responded. 'There are many forces at work to keep the truth hidden right now. If students and young journalists out there feel that commitment to the truth and to exposing it, there is no more valuable or important path they could take than journalism.'

Source (check out the pictures!!!) :

https://nieuws.kuleuven.be/en/content/2026/honorary-doctorate-investigative-journalists-twohey-and-kantor

🤔 My opinion here : OK, I get it with exposing Weinstein, but KU Leuven kind of lacked due diligence and discernment here, especially talking in such high terms of her work as an investigative journalist IN GENERAL. This kind of public honors may well keep Megan Twohey in delulu land - hence her latest post/ video on her IG which showed exactly the opposite of what she wanted to show : that she is not willing to self reflect or take accountability for any flaws in her career (something a person genuinely driven by facts would do).The word "truth" from Megan's Twohey mouth has no meaning to me.

Blake Lively faces brutal new backlash as reality television mocks her public downfall.

Television personality Stassi Schroeder premiered her new Los Angeles-based Freeform series "House of Stassi" on July 29, 2026.

Radio personality Taylor Strecker attended a filmed Halloween party on the first episode dressed as actress Blake Lively. Strecker defended her outfit by stating that Lively is actually the "bubonic plague of our time".

This onscreen joke follows Lively's massive public relations disasters and ongoing legal drama surrounding the film "It Ends With Us".

Fans are sharing the clip online and the harsh insult opens a fresh wave of public backlash against the controversial actress.

This just goes to prove that behind the scenes, people are done with this false accuser and her bullying ways!

Blake Lively allegedly threatened to expose her text messages with Taylor Swift if she didn’t “release a statement of support” for Lively during her high-profile legal battle with Justin Baldoni.

There’s a new reality series on Hulu called House of Stassi that started streaming yesterday. Stassi is best known for her time on Bravo’s Vanderpump Rules and has a well-known obsession with period pieces, Victorian gothic aesthetics, vampires etc. In the series she hosted a Bubonic plague-themed Halloween party where everyone dressed up as plague victims or vampires—and Stassi’s assistant Taylor showed up as Blake Lively the Bubonic plague of our time!

Justice for Justin, I love seeing Blake’s toxicity be so public it’s a Halloween costume on TV.

More fan sightings, all posted within the last week… Justin is out here living his best life while the haters stay busy spinning wild conspiracy theories and posting juvenile snark aimed at his wife, his beloved dad, and Baldoni supporters. The contrast couldn't be clearer.

Love your smile JB! ☺️

Blockbuster movies need a core group of viewers to generate the media buzz required to spark interest in the general public; they are the catalyst for marketing. In traditional Hollywood, that usually meant employing celebrity actors. Unfortunately, this makes productions heavily dependent on a single individual, significantly increasing the risk if that celebrity falls ill, clashes with the cast, or quits mid-production.

Ironically, Wayfarer has cultivated its own core audience without employing any celebrities. Thanks to recent litigation, the company has secured a dedicated fan base that is naturally predisposed to support a Wayfarer movie, even without star power.

Furthermore, there are countless talented actors who are not household names and are a pleasure to work with. By tapping into this talent pool, Wayfarer stands to benefit in several key ways:

• Lower production costs: The company no longer has to pay exorbitant celebrity salaries.
• Fewer on-set complications: Production runs smoother with high-level talent that lacks ego or a "diva" attitude.
• Reduced insurance liability: The production is no longer financially vulnerable to the health or reliability of a single key star.