u/ConstantPurpose2419

This is Thomas. Thomas loves a closeup.

[MODS - i realise that we have a mega thread for 47.1 now, but because this was such a long post and included screenshots I’ve posted it as a stand-alone. If you want me to move it that’s fine- just let me know 🤗]

Hi all! So I’ve been doing a little digging into this new 47.1 bill which has been hijacked from Victoria Burke by Blake Lively and her attorneys.

u/ maybeitsmaybelean posted a great overview of this issue over in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/b2C1YpYW0f, but now that spring sessions have ended I just wanted to dig a little deeper and see where the three 47.1 bills are in comparison with other bills.

So the first and main thing I noticed is that a whole bunch of bills were passed on the 4th June (screenshots 2,3+4) which was the last day of sessions (screenshot 1) - see this link https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation . None of the three 47.1 bills were passed and now the court sessions have finished. 47.1 is not getting passed this year. Boo hoo for Blake.

The second thing I noticed, and sorry if someone else has brought this up previously, but Senate Bill S9699 (screenshot 6) only has one action - and that action is that it was referred to codes on 2nd April 2026. If that date sounds familiar it is because that was the date Judge Liman dismissed most of Lively’s claims. I don’t know which of the three bills belongs to Lively/Hudson and which belong to Victoria Burke, but the April 2nd date is a bit of a coincidence. Does anyone else know which version of the bill belongs to who? And when did Sigrid start suggesting Lively was working on changing the legislation? Am I right in thinking it was in April? Does that mean that S9699 is Lively’s?

Third; if you take a look at any of the other bills that were passed you’ll see that they have multiple actions. So the comparison bill I’ve posted (screenshot 5) has 10 actions dating from February 2025. The 47.1 bills have got either one or two actions - indicating there there hasn’t been much activity on any of them at all.

So, questions;

•Did Esra/Blake hurriedly submit their own version of 47.1 in April when they found out that they’d lost almost all of their claims? Was that also when they started working with the advocacy groups? Literally has Blake only been playing advocate for 2 months?

•Were they seriously thinking this would be granted this session, or are they now playing the long game?

• If Judge Liman denies Blake 47.1 under California law how will this affect her hijacking of 47.1 in New York?

This is Thomas o’Malley and he is the sweetest, chonkiest, most gentle cat in the whole world and I adore him.

Hi all - this is part of a video from Lauren (Court of Random Opinion) and Prof Jo (Prof Jo Explains) YouTube channels in which they briefly discuss whether or not Lively can refile in California if the judge bats it over to state court. I’d recommend watching the whole video because they discuss what went down in the conference yesterday (Lauren attended and Jo gives her expert opinion)- I’ll post links to both channels in the comments. This is just a short clip discussing the possibility of re-filing in Cali.

Summary:

-If this is a final judgement then anything that was raised under this is gone once you get the judgement/settlement, you can’t just go back and do it again.

- There’s something called “estoppel law” saying you may have to accept findings that happened in first case.

- The answer is “probably not” if you’re talking about refilling that law (I think she means 47.1) Jo says “it wouldn’t be an easy one to get to”.

- If you’re talking about refilling the whole thing the answer is no.

Ok so not really a baby anymore - I adopted him last June and he is now just over a year 🥹 he is the sweetest, most adorable, kindest little soul in the whole world. I adore him 💕🥹

I hope @docketupdates is ok with me screenshotting her YouTube channel - if any issues I’ll happily take it down, but I found her commentary/ bulletin points really interesting and thought you guys might also! I’ll post the video link in the comments - commentary about 41.7 starts at around the 1 hour mark. Each screenshot you can see above is @docketupdates notes from the conference, and in the top left corner you’ll see the name of the attorney who is arguing their case.

Everyone probably remembers this pre-trial conference which took place before the settlement was decided upon and that there was a lot of discussion during that conference around 41.7, including arguments for and against by both sides. Most commentators agreed that this was the point in proceedings that Gottlieb got himself shook - I think Brit mentioned this also. The judge was putting a lot of pressure on him and Gottlieb seemed to be trying himself in knots.

I’m not sure how the arguments presented by each side here will marry with the specific issues the judge has set out for discussion on Monday - but I thought it might be handy to check in about what has already been argued previously.

…and then proceeded to extort, manipulate and coerce her way to stealing a movie and destroying the lives of multiple people through intimidation tactics.

I haven’t seen this mafia comment discussed a lot on here, so I wanted to ask what everyone’s thoughts are on it are? Just another example of Blake’s hilarious “love language never with teeth” bs, or an actual veiled threat?

Baby Theo 💕

What do you think - terrible nose job or Ozempic face?

One of them even says that the Reynolds are being sued by a contractor company. I wonder what diversionary tactic they’ll attempt next.

Thank you, Mercury News, for pointing out the irony of Blake shopping for purses while simultaneously having debt of over $2 million. How one person can be so utterly tone deaf is beyond me.

“Blake Lively appears to hope she can rehabilitate her
tattered reputation, following her bruising legal battle against Justin Baldoni, by parading around at the Met Gala on May 4 and by getting her photo taken on Tuesday evening while shopping for designer purses at a new-collection launch party at the Fendi flagship store in New York City”

“On the day Lively attended the Fendi party and mingled with other celebrities, the Daily Mail broke the news that the couple’s long-planned, sprawling upstate New York “dream home” remains unfinished and that they owe a combined $2.1 million for unpaid work to contractors. The Daily Mail, TMZ and other outlets cited records from Westchester County, which say that five contractors and subcontractors filed mechanics liens totaling that amount against the couple’s 110-acre property in April.”

Unfortunately for her it doesn’t seem to be working. But this is a tactic we’ve seen before right? A damning headline/ news story comes out, torching her reputation, and the next second she’s out there channelling Big Bird at some fashion event and telling people she’s shy 🥹.

Also worth noting is the second slide, because it was right after TMZ contacted Blake’s representatives asking about her lying under oath that she decided to settle, which essentially buried the story. If the DM are contacting her reps asking for comment on huge unpaid depts, and more news outlets are picking up the story, then more outlets will be contacting the Reynolds representatives and asking for comment, thus putting them in a vulnerable position (which they hate) and forcing them to make rash decisions (like agreeing to a settlement in which they received absolutely nothing). What we need next is a proper exposé story about the abuse and intimidation of content creators.

Why do I get the impression that things are going to start snowballing fast for the Reynolds pretty soon?