u/RyanHudson2025

Buckle up!

Quotes from article:

“Ex-JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana wants to withdraw his explosive “sex slave” lawsuitagainst the bank and a female supervisor — but the bank is fighting to stop him from unceremoniously dropping his claims”.

“Rana and his legal team must answer for the claims in the lawsuit, which JPMorgan lawyers called “materially false,” according to documents filed last week”.

Quotes from article:

“The statement was allegedly written in August 2024 by Lively and Reynolds after they were left “furious” at what they believed was unfair positioning of Lively in the promotion of the film, according to Baldoni's claims. According to the complaint's timeline of events, the couple claimed that as actor-director of the film, Baldoni was allowed to discuss “more serious messaging" during its promotion”.

“The statement reads, “It Ends with Us was a troubled production which we take full accountability for. We are very sorry to everyone we caused upset to privately and publicly.”

“Blake Lively, [author] Colleen Hoover, the entire cast and crew led with professionalism every step of the way, any negativity aimed at them is ours to own," the statement continued. "We mutually agreed that the cast would be promoting the film separately and understood why.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-s-statement-she-wanted-justin-baldoni-s-firm-to-release-revealed-8784448

——————————————

This request for a statement from lively and Reynolds made to Baldoni/Heath/Sarowitz essentially kicked off this legal saga as Lively pursued justice for herself and the cast and crew. This was the exact statement that per the discovery process Emily Baldoni said, “Fuck No” to when her husband asked her for an opinion.

The “ask” in the letter from lively and Reynolds was quite simple and and straightforward and looked for accountability from Baldoni and Heath and sarowitz.

But, instead of taking accountability, the response of Baldoni, Heath and sarowitz was to hire Freedman and Melissa Nathan (who worked for Jeffrey Epstein) and Jed Wallace (who is not a UK footballer) to smear and retaliate for the simple request of an apology. They also filed a retaliatory lawsuit that in dismissing it had Judge Liman calling it “legally baseless”.

Flash forward nearly 2 years and millions in legal fees on both sides later……..

Reading the DARVO statement issued this week by Lyin Bryan Freedman on behalf of his clients about the 47.1 order has me thinking that Baldoni, Heath and sarowitz learned zero from a nearly 2 year litigation process. Zero learned.

NOTHING was learned and they are still the same people who think they did zero
Wrong on the set of IEWU.

But it’s worse though I think as Baldoni, Heath and sarowitz now apparently want to reinvent history to claim they were “wrongly accused” by Lively and most likely are using Reddit to do it via comment creation in the controlled subreddits to alter Google AI search results.

Let the internet manipulation begin…if they cannot win a lawsuit then they will just manipulate the history of it to make it say what they want. I guess Freedman really is a “full service” firm where if a suit cannot be won then we just use our “internet specialist” to “make it so”!

Orwellian and should be illegal imo!



Quotes from article and BRYAN FREEDMAN enters the story:

“We do not stand for mean girls at this company,” Alex Cooperdeclared.
It was February 2025, and the Call Her Daddy podcaster had convened the staff of her Gen Z media empire, Unwell, to announce the news: Alix Earle was out.

BRYAN FREEDMAN ENTERS THE STORY:

“I feel honored to be at a place in my career where I can pass along knowledge and advice for a new generation of creators to flourish,” Cooper said in the announcement that Earle would be joining Unwell to launch her own podcast in 2023. Neither Cooper nor Earle has ever publicly given a reason for the schism, but it has played out enough in tabloids and social media that even covering the feud became a story in its own right.

“Well into my own reporting, Page Six published a thinly sourced item that I was working on a story. The paper pointed to a “not-that-long-ago Earle ‘fan piece,’ ” which was a Q&A I’d done with Earle for Linda Wells’s Air Mail series Getting Into Bed With, in which celebrities walk readers through their bedtime routines. I edited the series for a time, interviewing subjects ranging from Monica Bellucci to Gwyneth Paltrow.”

“That piece is a far cry from Woodward and Bernstein,” wrote Tatiana Siegel. “Maybe Molot upped her journalism game over the past two years, but some on Team Cooper are skeptical” given “that she has only been a reporter ‘for 5 minutes,’ ” she continued, not attributing the comments to anyone beyond “some on Team Cooper.”

“The day after the Page Six story ran, Vanity Fair received a letter from attorney Bryan Freedman—who has represented Justin Baldoni against Blake Lively; Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly against their respective networks; Kevin Spacey in his #MeToo saga; and both Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo in professional matters. The letter, sent on behalf of Cooper, Kaplan, and Unwell, accused this magazine of assigning this story to a “novice ‘journalist,’” alleging that I have “connections” to Earle, a “direct competitor of our clients in the podcasting and influencer spaces.”

“The letter included a threat: “If the Story so much as suggests any sexual impropriety on Mr. Kaplan’s part, I will make it my life’s mission to ensure Vanity Fair’s days are numbered.”

______________________

An observant member of the CLD Community posted this article in a comment on discussion of the recent Judge Liman order in the Lively v Wayfarer case on 47.1. The article was buried amidst many comments and I thought it deserved its own post.

Many over the past two years have commented on the tactics and thuggery of Bryan Freedman and his firm and I thought this most recent example detailed in this article deserves to be memorialized here on CLD. We need a new meme I think to say something like, “Where there is a Freedman threat letter there is 🔥 fire”!

Will there be litigation? Maybe imo as the workplace environment described in this article sounds worthy of investigation imo.

See what you 🤔 think!

Wallace v. Lively- Cliff Notes
Parties:      Plaintiffs- Jed Wallace, Street Relations
Defendants- Blake Lively 
Jed Wallace and his company Street Relations were hired for social monitoring by Wayfarer, the production company behind It Ends With Us. Lively alleges that Wallace and his company did more than monitoring but actively manipulated social media and online presences to paint Lively in a negative light due to her alleged SH against Justin Baldoni and related parties (the smear campaign)
Court- Western District of Texas
One sentence summary: Defamation case by Wallace and Street Relations against Lively based on the CRD Complaint filed in California by Lively
Main Details:
Lively’s CRD Complaint named Wallace and Street Relations as defendants
CRD had various allegations- Sexual harassment but also aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation
The complaint attached to the CRD complaint was publishe by media entites
Lively filed suit against the other defendants named in the CRD complaint but did not include Wallace or Street in December 2024 in the Southern District of New York
In January 2025, Lively filed the Petition for Rule 202 Deposition in Hays County Texas alleging that Wallace was a subcontractor of TAG
Wallace alleges that statements made in the complaint and the CRD complaint are false and defamatory
Core Procedural Issues:
Jurisdictional Issues- does Lively have sufficient contact with Texas for the Western District of Texas to have personal jurisdiction over her
Wallace alleges that since she availed herself to the courts with the Rule 202 petition, yes
Causes of Action in First Complaint:
Declaratory Judgment Act- allows a court to adjudicate- affords a plaintiff threatened with liability an early adjudication without waiting until the defendant begins an action after damage has accrued
Defamation

Docket History:
Lively filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
Wallace argues that he (and Street) did not breach a contract as he didn't have a contract with Lively, he didn't harass, retailiate, fail to investigate, or aid and abet; that he had no duty to the defendation that would give rise to a claim of negligence, and there was no tortious conduct

Why is this in Texas?  This is where Wallace chose to file- Wallace lives in Texas and Street Relations is incorporated in Texas (currently; it was formerly incorporated under California)
Lively's MTD focused on multiple arguments-
Procedural- Defendant's personal jurisdiction cannot be based on statements "aimed" ar Texas or that caused harm in Texas
It goes against the First to File rule
It's the improper venue
Lively also argues 12(b)(6)- failure to state a claim:
-Declaratory relief is not an independent cause of action
-Statements are subject to California law, they are privileged, and plaint fails to plead basic elements of defamation (the plaintiff did not plead with specificity, a pleading capture page is privielaged, the plaintiff fails to plead fault, and they don't allege damages); they also state that the CRD Form and CRD Complaint are protected speech

Wallace filed an Amended Complaint adding in specific quotes and providing occurrences of Lively making statements (or failing to respond to statements) made in Texas
His causes of action in Amended Complaint- defamation and defamation per se
Draft complaint and CRD complaint falsely stated that plaintiff engaged in ten illegal acts
Statements were made negligently (alleges they are private figures and this is the element required); or actual malice (plaintiff states they are not public figures but aims to be thorough)
Plaintiffs seek punitive damages in the amount of $6m, and therefore plaintiff must show actual malice
Defamation per se due to the fact that the statements accuse the plaintiffs of crimal conduct and injures the plaintiff in his occupation

MTD Granted:
In November, the judge granted Lively's Motion to Dismiss
Lively submitted a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint- argued similar arguments as first MTD
First looked at jurisdictional issues (if the court doesn't have jurisdiction, then it will not reach the merits)- the court looks at specific jurisdiction- narrow authority that applies if a defendant "purposefully avails" itself of the opportunity to do business in teh forum State and the suit "arise[s] out of or relate[s] to" the defendant's contacts with the forum state
Looks at Rule 202 and finds that it is not a cause of action and is insufficient to determine that the defendant was seeking affirmative relief 
Looks at Calder Effects Test- permits courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an author or publisher who aims a story at the state knowing that the effects of the story will be felt there- plaintiff's allegations don't show that the statements were aimed at Texas and plaintiffs don't allege that defendant relied on any Texas sources
Lastly, judge finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiency alleged that the defendants directed their actions toward the forum and knew their effects would be felt there
Thereofre, the court finds that the defendant's actions do not subject her to personal jurisidction of the court
Information and Beliefs Statement- plaintiffs made a rather vague statement about additional defamatory statements about plaintiffs made by defendants in Texas (including one instance where the defendant didn't reply to a Texas resident who stated that Blake Lies- these allegations are insufficient to support any claim
Because court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction, it did not evaluate the other bases for dismissal argued by defendants

Wallace filed a Motion to Appeal in December 

In April, Lively filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees based on Rule 47.1- Lively argues that CA law applies as plaintiffs filed a California lawsuit and Lively's substantive complaints were based on California law, and the statements that are at the base of plaintiff's defamation claims were included in the CRD complaint filed in California (and, at that time, Street was incorporated in California)
A response by plaintiffs and a reply by Lively have been filed
We are currently awaiting a decision on this motion

"How celebrity gossip is luring women and queer people into alt-right conspiracies"

Kat Tenbarge is calling out anti Lively creators like Zack Peter taking the alt right train from pop culture commentary to election conspiracy

"In the 2020s, I’ve watched plenty of creators and audiences follow this trajectory.

Some of them start out as anti-Trump social justice warriors and fall for reactionary conservatism disguised as progressive (a common thread in political manifestations of DARVO).

Other times, they were always conservative and concealed it to partake in seemingly nonpartisan displays of misogyny against celebrity women.

Reality TV, high-profile court cases, and influencer scandals may not have been obvious political territory before, but they’ve clearly turned into conduits for alt-right thinking.

And smear campaigns against famous actresses and progressive politicians in the spotlight rely on the same biases and rhetoric that could later justify voting for Trump or claiming the position of mayor of LA was stolen from a different reality villain."

"Once an audience starts going down the conspiratorial pipeline, the creator can’t stop them. They can join them or lose them."

We've all seen various commentary about the settlement and even disappointment that she didn't see it through. There's also a lot of talk about whether she can actually get much out of the 47.1 motion. But I think there's a lot more to this.

I've always felt there was much more damage done to Lively by WP fictitious lawsuit and conduct that has happened since then than what she experienced in 2024. Don't get me wrong, the initial campaign was awful, but in terms of damages, I think 2025 was far worse. I had another look at Humphreys' expert report and it seems to confirm this.

Lively's amended complaint tried to link some of this back to Freedman's statements and defamation, and partly in continued retaliation via the lawsuit. But these were not strong areas or a focus of her complaint. It also limited any evidence and damages to mid Feb 2025 when she filed her amended complaint. When the defamation was dismissed (not surprisingly), she had a much smaller claim on these damages and even claiming the lawsuit was part of the retaliation, as an employee, was unclear if that would be accepted by a jury. Damages on behalf of her companies was also an unknown factor.

Now the 47.1 motion does not have the same limitations. It is not time restricted to what occurred before mid-Feb. We also have a statement from WP (even if they used a caveat) basically confirming she made complaints that were reasonable and not made with malice. Additionally, their lawsuit never alleged malice, let alone show evidence.

So by letting go of her lawsuit to focus on this motion, not only could her damages be far greater, they are also treble. And I think it's fairly simple to show the damages that occurred after Jan 2025 are based on their lawsuit, including their attempt at a website that they had to walk back and include a timeline on the docket instead, in an attempt to protect themselves.

I've seen claims that Lively will only get fees and costs and that all of this is over a few $100k. Not only is that wishful thinking on behalf of the pro-JB community (possibly accepting that 47.1 is valid), but there is no way for this to happen AFAIK. Either 47.1 applies or it doesn't. And if it does, then treble damages are mandatory, punitive damages may be optional. And those damages could be far greater than anyone has considered. It also makes the individuals liable (including their billionaire), not Wayfarer and IEWUM, so there's no avenue to just dissolve the companies and shirk any responsibilities.

I don't think Lively is avoiding a trial at all. But a trial on this would be glorious - as it would focus purely on damages since Jan 2025 and all the actions surrounding this. The expert reports mention the behaviours in the pro-JB subs, and it's so amusing to me that they may have all contributed a lot to Lively's actual damages claim. All while assuming nothing that was said after her SAC could be used.

Lively gave up her lawsuit that had a lot of unknown factors. In doing so she altered what damages are now relevant - and I believe they could be far greater than what her lawsuit would have provided. So while we've been pondering why she would settle without any damages paid, it may just have been a master stroke that we didn't see coming.

Note: this is the musings of a sleep-deprived non-lawyer, so would love to hear any views - including opposing views if I've missed something entirely.

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard (Depp v. Heard): A Turning Point in Public Perception, Mass Psychology, and Crisis PR

The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case (Depp v. Heard) was a landmark not only in legal history but also in the fields of public perception management, mass psychology, and crisis public relations.

The Depp Side: Strategic Advantages

Turning the Courtroom into a Stage

Depp and his legal team understood that the trial would be broadcast live. They successfully transformed the courtroom into a stage and both the jury and the public into an audience.

An Aggressive Offensive Strategy

Rather than focusing on defense, Depp’s attorneys embraced the idea that the best defense is a strong offense. Their primary objective was not necessarily to prove Depp completely innocent, but to undermine Amber Heard’s credibility to the point where nothing she said would be believed.

Natural Charisma and Global Icon Status

Depp’s decades-long fan base interpreted his sarcastic, calm, and humorous demeanor in court not as arrogance, but as the composure of a beloved icon who had been wronged. As an actor, he knew exactly how to present himself in front of cameras and a live audience.

A Romanticized Atmosphere

The warm and friendly interactions between attorney Camille Vasquez and Depp attracted significant public attention. Whether intentional or not, these moments softened the otherwise grim atmosphere of the trial and helped reinforce an image of Depp as likable, gentle, and valued by those around him.

The Advantage of Livestreaming

The live broadcast of the proceedings allowed Depp’s team and supporters to dominate social media platforms such as TikTok and YouTube through short clips and viral moments. Public perception was shaped not only inside the courtroom but by millions of people watching online.

Timing and Carefully Chosen Witnesses

The appearance of Kate Moss, a globally recognized figure, was a particularly significant moment for Depp’s side. Her testimony directly challenged one of Heard’s claims and was widely viewed as a major strategic victory.

The Heard Side: Unmanaged Disadvantages

Underestimating the Scale of the Trial

Heard’s team appeared to underestimate both the power of social media and the level of public antipathy their client would face.

Attorney–Client Disconnect

The visible lack of coordination between Heard and her legal team created the impression that she was isolated and unsupported. Effective trial advocacy often requires lawyers to guide and control the presentation of their client’s testimony, especially under intense public scrutiny.

The Absence of Key Witnesses

The fact that important witnesses such as Melanie Inglessis did not testify in person reduced the sense of immediacy and authenticity that live testimony can create. This allowed Camille Vasquez to argue effectively that “no one came here for her,” a statement that resonated strongly with audiences.

The Donation Controversy

The dispute over whether Heard had “donated” or merely “pledged” her divorce settlement to charity was not directly related to the abuse allegations. Nevertheless, it became one of the most powerful tools used to portray her as dishonest and severely damaged her credibility in the eyes of many observers.

Perception Management and Logical Fallacies

The case was heavily influenced by the myth of the “perfect victim.”

1. The Illusion That Bad People Cannot Be Victims

A narrative emerged suggesting that unpleasant people cannot be abused.

Legally and logically, a person being difficult, dishonest, unfaithful, or unlikeable does not make them incapable of experiencing abuse. However, much of the public discussion shifted away from the question of whether abuse occurred and toward Heard’s character.

As a result, many people appeared to adopt the following line of reasoning:

“Amber Heard is unreliable, strange, and unlikeable. Therefore, her allegations must be false.”

This is a classic logical fallacy.

2. Character Assassination Through Irrelevant Evidence (Red Herring)

The Defecation Story

Whether or not someone engaged in bizarre or inappropriate behavior has little bearing on whether they could have been subjected to domestic violence. Nevertheless, this story became one of the most effective tools in portraying Heard as irrational, disgusting, or unstable in the eyes of the public.

Infidelity and Elevator Footage

Infidelity is a moral or relationship issue. It is neither proof that abuse occurred nor proof that it did not occur. Yet these stories and images became powerful sources of public outrage directed at Heard.

Conclusion

Regardless of who was right or wrong, this case represented the point at which legal proceedings ended and public relations, media production, and mass audience engagement began.

The Depp v. Heard trial demonstrated how a charismatic public figure, supported by an effective legal and media strategy, can shift attention away from the central allegations and toward the character and credibility of the opposing party.

It was, above all, a powerful example of how public perception can be shaped through a combination of courtroom performance, social media dynamics, internet algorithms, and the psychological tendencies of large audiences.

I think the full PR narrative for the latest Freedman/Nathan (definitely met Jeffrey Epstein) using Victoria Burke for their own purposes, is now all out and running on social media.

Do wonder though about today’s push and Burkes own words yesterday comparing Lively to Amber Heard, speaks to the true desperation of the Freeman/wayfarer camp? And, are these remarks seen today from a range of paid CCs such as NAG to be considered defamatory?

Is the actual risk of treble damages via 47.1 so great and concerning that Freedman and the Wayfarers are willing to risk more litigation for defamation?

But I continue to be baffled about Victoria Burke being willing to be involved with the folks she has aligned herself with to put out her message? If she really cared about helping victims via 47.1 and its sibling legislation in other states, why wouldn’t she be open to full questioning and investigation of the present language by someone of the stature of Judge Liman? If the mechanics of present language need tweaking then isn’t it better to do it sooner rather than later? If the drafting as is were perfect then what Federal Judge would need a 1 hr preliminary hearing to sort out very basic questions? I just don’t understand Burke blaming the present scrutiny on Lively attorneys?

Any help understanding any of this would be appreciated as the pile on effect happening is now a farce and it’s yet another example in many ways of blaming the victim but being done by the person claiming to want to help victims imo.

I’m lost 😞.