Disclaimer: There are likely additional billing entries related to these filings hidden among the more generic descriptions. These are just the ones I've identified so far based on their dates and descriptions, which seem to correspond with filings from around the same time.

1-6: Invoices

7: Blake's Amended R&O

8: Wayfarer's Motion to Compel

9: Blake's Opposition

10: Order on Motion to Compel

11: Blake's Letter Request for Clarification Re: Order

12: Memo Re: Order

Disclaimer: There are likely additional billing entries related to these filings hidden among the more generic descriptions. These are just the ones I've identified so far based on their dates and descriptions, which seem to correspond with filings from around the same time.

1-6: Invoices

7: Blake's Amended R&O

8: Wayfarer's Motion to Compel

9: Blake's Opposition

10: Order on Motion to Compel

11: Blake's Letter Request for Clarification Re: Order

12: Memo Re: Order

It wasn't enough for Blake Lively to weaponize and mischaracterize Natasha and Jamey Heath's post-birth video as porn; she also had the audacity to seek sanctions, demand production of ALL of the private footage--including footage that wasn't even on Jamey's phone--and then try to prevent him from testifying about it. And now, of course, is requesting payment for it.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1448/2/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/384718-willkie-farr-strikes-deal-with-trump-agrees-to-100m-in-services-ends-dei

Apparently, on February 17, 2025, attorney Vincent Biagiotti of Willkie Farr & Gallagher spent 8.3 hours researching case law related to "CRD Complaint perjury" and "perjury in statements made to state agencies."

Gotta protect their lying, manipulating, scheming client with their own lying, manipulating, scheming lawyer tactics.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1448/2/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

I needed a palate/soul cleanser. In contrast to Ryan Reynold’s Father’s Day “tribute” video, I thought I’d share a Father’s Day compilation tribute to Justin Baldoni (and father figures like him)--those who show up for their kids, protect them instead of exploiting or manipulating them, and are emotionally attuned, attentive, empathetic, supportive, and kind.

Came across this in Kjersti Flaa's video. Apparently, Cesspool posted this a few days ago with the caption:

>"It's important to be honest with them. Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there."

This is after he repeatedly threw his daughters under the bus for a laugh, made his son the punchline of his jokes, and forced his 7-year-old daughter to repeatedly say sexually graphic, vulgar lines 70 to 500 times even after she made it clear she didn't want to.

I can't tell if he's intentionally trolling and rage-baiting or if he's just completely devoid of self-awareness. Probably both.

Maybe I took the bait, but I’ll also take it as another opportunity to highlight what a terrible father and terrible human being he is. And a predator.

A compilation of clips from Victoria Burke’s recent interview with Billy Bush, spliced together for clarity and preservation. Full interview here. 

Summary:

Victoria Burke, the architect of California’s 47.1, critiques a recent ruling applying the statute after the underlying case had already settled. She expresses concern that the court addressed key issues at a pre-trial stage rather than allowing them to be fully developed through a trial process.

Her central concern is procedural fairness. She expected issues like malice to be tested through a full evidentiary process, not effectively resolved based on the existing record once settlement ended the case. She suggests that if the procedural posture had been understood differently from the outset, Justin Baldoni’s attorneys may have approached litigation differently, including how they may have structured their arguments and evidentiary submissions earlier in the process.

Overall, she raises concerns about whether the ruling aligns with the intended operation of the statute when applied outside of a full fact-finding framework.

Quotes:

"How do you have attorney fees but not actual damages?"

"If you're saying there's no malice, wouldn't they go together?"

"If there was an actual showing of malice, then let's see it."

"I would have preferred that it went to the stage where it was actually heard with the facts."

"I would have been more comfortable had it gone to being heard in front of a jury."

"If it was anti-SLAPP, you would have presented it differently. You would put more evidence and more statements earlier on."

"Baldoni's attorneys might have presented it differently if they knew it wasn't going to be heard on the facts."

Initially posted on January 23, 2025 but still holds up really well.

This creator, Morgan, shares her perspective on the Justin Baldoni–Blake Lively lawsuit as a sexual assault survivor, PR professional, and Black woman.

Summary:

Morgan's main argument is that this case highlights a difficult conversation about power, evidence, and the concept of "white women's tears"—when perceptions of innocence, vulnerability, or victimhood can be weaponized against others.

She says she generally defaults to believing victims because of her own experience with the criminal justice system and the reality that false reports are rare. However, she argues that believing victims should not mean ignoring evidence. Based on the information that has become public, she believes some of Blake Lively's claims appear exaggerated or contradicted by the available evidence, and that this deserves serious discussion rather than being dismissed.

She also challenges the narrative that Lively was the less powerful party. While Baldoni is a man, she points out that Lively entered the situation as a major Hollywood star with powerful industry connections, including Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift, while Baldoni's production company was relatively new. In her view, the power imbalance may have actually favored Lively.

The creator also discusses what she calls "nice nasty" behavior—messages that appear friendly on the surface but carry an underlying threat—and argues that some of the communications revealed in the lawsuit fit that pattern.

Overall, her message is that this case is not black and white. She believes people can support real victims while also examining evidence critically, questioning inconsistencies, and recognizing that power can take forms beyond gender alone.

Quotes:
 
“White women tears is the concept of using your unique intersectional experience as a white woman to get what you want at the detriment of those around you, especially people of color.”

“The concept of a Karen is a white woman that weaponizes her privilege and perception of fragility and vulnerability to harm other people when she doesn't get what she wants or there's been some rejection of the benefits her privilege usually provides her.”

“Nice nasty is where you say something on the surface that sounds real innocent, but the undertones are extremely threatening.”

“Believe victims, but also believe evidence and facts too.”

Related Post:

White Feminism Explained: White Women Patriarchists Protect Power | Blake Lively & Taylor Swift

Initially posted more than a year ago, 'Judge' Shan presides over Lively v Wayfarer:

"Even with your own wardrobe selections?"

"You really shouldn't use references you don't know."

"“So…Taylor is Viserion.”

"You are getting a lesson in GOT today."

"I think we can all agree here that Mr. Baldoni's emotionally stable and calming voice on that voice note is going to do more harm than it's going to do good for you..."

Justin Baldoni is not a perfect victim. All because he’s a man.

Society is quick to presume guilt when an accusation comes from a woman, and even more so when that woman is wealthy, white, and socially privileged, backed by an even more powerful and influential husband. This can create what seems like an impenetrable shield of credibility, regardless of whether evidence supports it. 

His accuser can make false or misleading allegations, but because he is a man, public perception often treats him as automatically guilty. She can enlist what was once considered one of the most reputable legacy news institutions to commission a hit piece against him. From there, the narrative assumes that he must have done something to deserve it. Her allegations become headline news and his established character becomes irrelevant.

Justin can have no prior history of similar accusations. No pattern. No other accusers. Yet none of that protects him from judgment. For faux feminists and misandrists, the accusation itself becomes enough. Once made, it dominates the conversation and overshadows everything else.

Justin can have years of positive relationships with cast and crew, spanning multiple productions. He can have colleagues who consistently speak highly of his character and conduct. He can have a reputation built over years of collaboration and professionalism. Yet all of that can be swept aside the moment a wealthy and powerful woman decides to accuse him of wrongdoing. 

Justin has also spoken openly and vulnerably about his own experiences with sexual harassment and assault. Rather than being met with empathy, those experiences have been used against him. He has advocated for conversations around active consent and accountability, only to see those efforts reframed as evidence of wrongdoing. Qualities that would ordinarily be viewed as signs of honesty, vulnerability, and self-awareness instead became ammunition for those determined to portray him in the worst possible light.

Meanwhile, his accuser can have a documented history of lying, manipulating, and bullying others, including on the set of IEWU, and still be granted perpetual benefit of the doubt. She can have a pattern of isolating and targeting individuals, turning the cast against her selected target, and even against an interviewer within moments of an interview beginning—behavior that mirrors what she did to Justin. Yet these patterns are dismissed, minimized, or ignored because acknowledging them would complicate the preferred narrative.

This is how "white women tears" operate. A privileged white woman can weaponize her narrative and receive immediate and continued protection, validation, and support from mainstream media outlets, powerful institutions, and elite social circles before the evidence has been thoroughly examined. Pitchforks first, evidence later—or sometimes, as in this case, not at all. 

And even after substantial evidence has come out over the course of the past 18 months, resulting in the judge dismissing 10 of the 13 remaining claims—including all claims related to sexual harassment—in the eyes of pitch-fork carrying faux feminists and misandrists, Justin remains “guilty.” Not because they can point to actual proof that he committed the horrific acts he was accused of, but because the accusation itself has become the verdict. 

In fact, even when evidence has shown the opposite of what was alleged—that Justin has been the target of relentless bullying and abuse, he is still not seen as a victim. He can have his creative work stolen from him, have the cast turned against him, be excluded from the promo, have false allegations made against him, and be used as a scapegoat for the failures of a tone-deaf marketing campaign.

He has shown grace, compassion, and restraint despite being repeatedly bullied, berated, and betrayed.

Yet he is not allowed to be a victim. Only the perpetrator. 

All because he’s a man.

https://x.com/abc730/status/1450388774249140231

In this interview, Tarana Burke clarifies the meaning of “Believe Survivors,” explaining that it does not mean automatically believing every accusation. She emphasizes that the phrase is about taking allegations seriously, not presuming guilt or innocence. 

"When people say 'I believe her' or 'believe survivors,' it's not "believe anybody who comes forward with an accusation."

"If you believe, it doesn't mean you go forward and you actually condemn the man automatically."

"It means you investigate, it means you take it seriously."

“There is no part of me that can… say believe all women.” 

"In America and across the world, sexual violence [accusations] has been weaponized against Black men."

"And so when you hear people say 'believe survivors,' take it out of your mind that it's a blanket statement that means that anybody who comes forward with an accusation is telling the truth."

"What you should hear is, 'Let me take this seriously.'"

-----

Unlike Blake and her Blakestans, we listened—not selectively, but to both sides. We engaged with the material in good faith. We read the filings, followed the investigation, and examined the evidence as it developed.

Most of us gave Blake the benefit of the doubt at the outset and were willing to accept, or at least seriously consider, her claims. As more evidence emerged, some of us changed our minds. Others had reservations from the beginning based on her prior behavior, but still kept an open mind and followed the evidence wherever it led. 

What we didn’t do was disregard contradictory evidence, rely on misleading headlines, or form conclusions solely from selective commentary. We tried to evaluate both sides based on context, inconsistencies, and the full record rather than isolated excerpts taken out of context.

The phrase “Believe Survivors” doesn’t mean treating every allegation as automatically true or exempting anyone from scrutiny. It means taking claims seriously, not dismissing them reflexively, and allowing evidence and investigation to determine credibility.

I am a survivor. I believe survivors. And I believe taking allegations seriously requires exactly what Tarana Burke described: listening, investigating, and following the evidence wherever it leads. After listening, investigating, and following the evidence in this case, I believe Justin.

https://x.com/YanaLukeman/status/2062492788306923862

As always, the comments are 🔥

https://x.com/YanaLukeman/status/2062492788306923862

As always, the comments are 🔥

https://www.tiktok.com/@samegirldifferenttyme/photo/7647143245507562782

Photo credit to: https://x.com/TVMovieAddict/status/2018032948990160994/photo/1

Thought it would be a good time to revisit this email from an Epstein victim alleging predatory behavior involving multiple attorneys including Sigrid McCawley.

I don’t know whether the claims in it are true or not, but given the recent interview with Victoria Burke where she revealed that Blake Lively’s attorney was attempting to add a paragraph during the redrafting of a 47.1 bill to include language protecting attorneys, I can’t help but be reminded of this email.

To be clear, I do not think Blake is in any way a victim, much less comparable to an Epstein victim (or to someone like Gisèle Pelicot, for that matter!!). I'm more focused on the potential manipulative and exploitative practices by Blake’s attorneys.

We've already seen plenty of unethical "lawyering," including the Vanzan sham lawsuit, invasive third-party subpoenas targeting at least 107 content creators, abuse of sanctions, repeated doxxing of Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer parties, and weaponizing §47.1. They're pretty comfortable exploiting legal loopholes already.

It’s not too far a stretch that this kind of exploitation extends to people like Victoria Burke, the architect of §47.1, or even clients they represent.

I originally posted this in the TJB sub nine months ago, but thought it was timely to share it here as well.

It's an article I came across written by a trauma therapist discussing the impact that false allegations and the weaponization of the MeToo movement can have on real victims.

---

My Fave Quotes:

"Can the #MeToo movement maintain its integrity when false accusations are made? How do we balance the need to protect victims with the need to ensure the rights of the accused?"

“An accusation is not a conviction.”

"False accusations undermine the entire #MeToo movement and the experiences of real victims."

"Making false claims is not just a moral failure—it is a betrayal of the very women’s voices that the #MeToo movement was designed to protect."

"We must strive to believe the truth."

---

Did Blake Lively Ruin the #MeToo Movement? A Trauma Therapist Explains

In today’s world, we’ve been taught to believe women when they speak out about harassment and assault. For many, the #MeToo movement was a wake-up call to the rampant sexual violence and discrimination that women have faced for centuries. It gave a platform to countless survivors to share their stories, and empowered many to finally hold abusers accountable. The idea is simple: believe the victims, protect the vulnerable, and dismantle the systems that allow abusers to thrive.

But what happens when the person making the accusations turns out to be less than truthful? This is the difficult and uncomfortable question that arises with the recent case involving Blake Lively, the actress known for her role in Gossip Girl and a number of successful films. Lively has accused Justin Baldoni, the director of her latest film, of sexual harassment. She even went so far as to label him a “predator” and an “abuser.” The claims were serious, and for many, the initial reaction was one of support for the actress—after all, she was speaking out, right?

However, as the story has unfolded, more details have come to light, and it seems that Blake Lively may not be entirely truthful in her accusations. Reports have surfaced revealing discrepancies in her story, and already she has been caught in several lies. Does this mean there is no truth to her claims? Not necessarily. But it certainly casts a shadow of doubt over her accusations, especially when the story has yet to go to court.

This situation raises an important question about the broader #MeToo movement and how we handle accusations of sexual harassment and assault. While the movement was designed to protect women and give them a voice, it is crucial that we ask: What happens when women lie? Can the #MeToo movement maintain its integrity when false accusations are made? How do we balance the need to protect victims with the need to ensure the rights of the accused? And what role do we, as a society, play in navigating these difficult conversations?

As a trauma therapist, let me break this down this important conversation.

1. An Accusation is Not a Conviction

One of the most critical principles in any justice system is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The moment an accusation is made, the public’s first instinct is often to side with the accuser. But we must resist the impulse to treat an accusation as a conviction.

In the case of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, the fact that the accusations have yet to go to court means that the truth has not been fully revealed. Whether Lively’s claims are true or not is something only a thorough investigation and a court of law can determine. As much as we may want to believe the accuser’s version of events, we cannot punish the accused based on accusations alone. This is especially important in today’s media age, where the speed of online information can result in irreversible damage to someone's reputation long before any verdict is handed down.

We need to remember that in our justice system, an accusation is just that—an accusation. It is not proof of guilt. While we should always take accusations seriously and ensure that victims feel heard, we must also hold space for the possibility that the accused may not be guilty. We cannot allow the court of public opinion to replace the legal system.

2. Predatory Men Should Never Be Excused

This doesn’t mean we should dismiss the very real issue of sexual harassment, assault, or violence. Predatory men who abuse their power or harm others should never, under any circumstances, be excused. As a society, we must continue to fight for justice for the victims of these crimes, no matter how much we may like or respect the perpetrator.

Whether it is someone famous like Harvey Weinstein or an ordinary person, anyone who crosses boundaries and harms others must be held accountable. We cannot allow any person, no matter how powerful or well-liked, to be given a free pass simply because of their status.

The line is clear: If someone is proven to have committed such a crime, they must face consequences. But until then, it is crucial that we balance protecting victims with protecting the rights of the accused.

3. Women Who Lie Need to Be Held Accountable

The flip side of this is that women who make false accusations need to be held accountable as well. It’s a difficult and uncomfortable truth, but it’s a truth nonetheless. False accusations undermine the entire #MeToo movement and the experiences of real victims.

When someone like Blake Lively is caught in a lie, it doesn’t just hurt the individual man accused—it damages the credibility of all women who have been victims of real harassment. It creates a dangerous precedent where people begin to question all accusations, no matter how legitimate they may be.

This is why it is crucial that women who lie are also held accountable. Not only does it protect the integrity of the #MeToo movement, but it also sends a message that false accusations will not be tolerated. Making false claims is not just a moral failure—it is a betrayal of the very women’s voices that the #MeToo movement was designed to protect.

4. Believe the Truth

Perhaps the most important lesson here is that we must strive to believe the truth. This means we cannot side with one gender unilaterally. The truth is that people are flawed, and both men and women are capable of telling lies. While it is essential to believe victims and support them, we cannot ignore the possibility that the accused may not be guilty, especially when evidence or inconsistencies arise.

This requires a careful balance: we must support the victims, protect the innocent, and seek out the truth above all else. We cannot blindly follow one side or the other based on gender alone. Only by focusing on objective facts and pursuing justice will we make real progress in eradicating sexual harassment and assault.

Gay Men and the #MeToo Movement

In the LGBTQ+ community, particularly among gay men, there is often a strong sense of loyalty to women. This is understandable, given that women have historically championed gay rights causes, and gay men have supported women’s causes in turn. However, this loyalty can sometimes create an unwillingness to criticize women when they may be in the wrong.

While it’s admirable to want to support women, it’s also important to understand that criticism can be constructive. Just as we hold men accountable for their actions, we must hold women accountable as well. Challenging false claims, like those potentially made by Blake Lively, is not an attack on feminism or women’s rights—it’s a necessary step in ensuring that the #MeToo movement stays focused on real victims, not on individuals who misuse their platform for personal gain.

The Real Victims: Protecting Those Who Truly Suffer

Sexual trauma is a very real problem in our culture, one that disproportionately affects women. Sadly, most victims of sexual trauma never report their experiences, either because they fear not being believed, or because they simply cannot bring themselves to relive the pain. These survivors are the ones we must protect, and their voices are the ones we must amplify.

The #MeToo movement was founded on the principle that every woman deserves to be heard. It was created to break the silence that has surrounded sexual violence for far too long. But we cannot allow the movement to be hijacked by false claims. We need to ensure that the focus remains on the real victims—those who have been harassed, assaulted, or otherwise harmed.

If you are a victim of sexual trauma, please know that you are not alone. There is help available, and you deserve to be heard and supported. If you or someone you know is in need of help, please seek it out. Your bravery can pave the way for others to find the courage to speak out as well.

Conclusion: Blake Lively and the Future of #MeToo

In conclusion, the story of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is a complicated one. While it’s critical that we protect women and support real victims, we must also ensure that false accusations are not allowed to undermine the movement. We must hold both the accused and the accuser accountable and always strive to pursue the truth. Only by doing so can we create a system that supports true victims while ensuring justice for everyone involved.

Let’s continue to fight for the rights of women—and men—to be heard, while also ensuring that the truth is always the guiding principle in our pursuit of justice.

In light of the gaslighting that “advocate” attempted to do today on behalf of Blake Lively today, I thought I’d share this particular segment where Adam Mondschein describes what really happened on set during the filming of the birth scene. You can find the full interview with Kjersti Flaa here, and the post I made about it several weeks ago here.

Summary: 

• The birth scene was filmed on a closed set in a repurposed medical facility, with limited space and only essential crew present.
• The scene was fully staged and choreographed, involving coordination between director, actors, cinematography, and lighting setup.
• A real newborn baby was used (with parental supervision on set), along with prosthetics and materials used to simulate birth effects.
• The baby was present during rehearsal/filming moments, and special effects (like umbilical cord simulation) were used and required multiple takes.
• Blake Lively was fully covered with costume elements including a hospital gown and prosthetic belly, with no nudity or explicit exposure during filming.
• Filming involved standard production logistics, where actors are often not in the room during lighting/camera adjustments.
• Blake Lively was not isolated or unattended; her team and assistants were present, with opportunities to move between setups.
• The final scene appears more intimate on camera due to camera angles and staging, not physical proximity on set.
• Concerns raised about the set may reflect a misunderstanding of normal film production practices.
• Industry power dynamics and fear of professional consequences may discourage some crew from speaking openly about high-profile productions.

In recognition of World Narcissistic Abuse Awareness Day, I thought I'd share this article. Although it was written more than a year ago, the evidence released since then has only further reinforced the abusive tactics Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have used--and continue to use--against Justin Baldoni. They've also shamelessly weaponized the legal system, advocacy organizations, the MeToo movement, and (white) feminism.

I'd also add that, beyond what's discussed in the article, we've repeatedly seen traits commonly associated with narcissism exhibited by both Blake and Ryan, including:

• Entitlement reflected through hypocrisy, double standards, and special treatment ("rules for thee, not for me")
• Arrogance and a sense of superiority
• Lack of accountability
• Lack of empathy
• Lack of self-reflection and self-awareness
• An excessive need demand for praise and admiration
• Hypersensitivity to criticism, resulting in numerous narcissistic injuries
• Fragile self-esteem masked by an inflated ego

We've also seen vindictiveness, spitefulness, and cruelty, traits more commonly associated with malignant narcissism and sociopathy.

And beyond the tactics (ie, manipulation, gaslighting, blame-shifting) discussed in the article, we've repeatedly witnessed:

• Love-bombing
• Word salads
• Triangulation
• Ostracization and isolation
• Mocking and taunting
• Passive-aggressive insults
• Dog whistles
• Humiliation rituals, including the five-hour berating of Justin in front of colleagues and execs
• Repeated use of threats and intimidation throughout production and litigation (arson, ransom threats, doxxing, and attempts at silencing critics)

 

And, of course, there's the ongoing smear campaign targeting Justin and those associated with him, including his PR team, legal team, and content creators.

-----
Related Posts:

On World Narcissistic Abuse Awareness Day, Let’s Talk About What Justin Baldoni Has Been Put Through

The Absurd Audacity and Entitlement of Blake Lively

Maximum Effort, Minimum Sensitivity: Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds’ Authorship of the It Ends with Us Marketing Campaign

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

“Fear is by design” -- apparently by Blake and Ryan’s design

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds’ ‘Digital Violence’ Against Justin Baldoni, Critics, and Women

In the same deposition that was doxed, Justin says he’s received death threats

Narcissistic Injury: Justin Baldoni ‘Rejecting’ (Aka Not Effusively Praising) Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively’s Rooftop Scene Rewrites