I was just reading this text thread again between Blake and Brandon.

#🟡24 May 2024

https://preview.redd.it/j967hwhmgp1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c4746a213293f4a9b48fcacf433844d735ba2a6

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.58.pdf

I really wonder what he and others who took her at her word thinks now if they've seen what we have...

##Thoughts:
🔴 She says he saw her edit without being authorised to see it. As if the director needs her permission? Which is ironic considering what she did in February 2024⬇️

February 22, 2024: Baldoni starts his first day back in the edit bay with his two editors.

February 24, 2024: Heath and Baldoni are informed of Lively's request, made through the “Alist producer,” to join Baldoni in the editing bay. She also expressed that she had limited time before leaving to shoot her next Film in April. If she could not be involved in the edit with Baldoni, she could not promise to promote the Film. In doing so, Lively knowingly infringed on Baldoni’s DGA-protected editing time.
 
February 25, 2024: Baldoni sends a group text to Lively and the “A-list producer” to inform her that he still needs a couple of weeks to get the Film into a presentable shape. He proposes having Lively join the editing process during the week of March 18, 2024. Lively responds that she would like to be in the “passenger seat” with him and wants to get started as soon as possible.

🔴 She says it wont be a Frankenstein cut. It's either hers or Justin's which reminds me of what Josh said...

https://preview.redd.it/e7wydvhqgp1h1.jpg?width=1032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=830c2e441f0db9ea8b627c5808eda27f75369471

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.64.pdf

🔴 Blake saying how she would have handed him a career with her work on the movie. How he wrecks havoc where ever he goes and then they come to her... Like she was asked to fix things for them...

---

#🟡31 May 2024

https://preview.redd.it/0y7iptftgp1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14e8bca991161e01ee85d535a539e553a0cc8d06

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1249.10.pdf

The irony of her saying that she would've handed him a career when the cut she worked on (box in red) scored lower than his (box in blue) and she then proceeds to say they're declaring it's her cut even with lower scores. That she will get the numbers up... So

1. Bake off done, she scored lower but wants another chance
2. Doesn't care if her cut scored lower ... After she just told Brandon a few days ago that she just wants to focus on the work and not be pulled into the mess... What mess? Their movie scored better than hers? The work was good already

---

#🟡9 June 2024

https://preview.redd.it/1bnpjnc2hp1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2211daa455399f2c527b1fde935816dfbeb996f

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.60.pdf

Sony discussing a few days later Justin scored higher and book readers preferred his cut (where is that platter now?)  and that they asked her to put some of his work back (hello Frankenstein) out of 5 she put 2 of Justin's back, refused to listen to Sony on 2 others ( while claiming it's Sony's cut) and 1 did a combo to compromise...

---

And throwback to 11 March 2024 when Sony CEO Sandford Panitch called it that she would demand her own cut...

https://preview.redd.it/l7uav555hp1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=051c7cd86974d1ac48a70bf1b8f6284e6160d0c4

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1249.15.pdf

I honestly wonder if they've reached out in private to apologize for insulting him with her after seeing how she lied about him and her "Sony cut"

I see we're getting a lot of "why do you hate Blake / why don't you believe Blake posts since the settlement was announced. This is post number 6 : Blake's text pre-filming

To me, a big part of why I don't believe Blake is that many people claim she was only insulting Justin after he SH her and that according to them is totally understandable.

But looking at it from the the other perspective of her having always intended to take over the movie as she has said in interviews she does what seems like a rug pull and them then threatening that the gloves will come off if Wayfarer doesn't take accountability for the backlash of the marketing campaign Maximum Effort and Sony had control over and the lawsuit being the result of that. These text really just reinforced how they had ill will against Justin and Wayfarer from the start

---

#🔵Timeline Dates:

For this post we first need to establish a few key dates. I'm using the timeline on Blakestein files to help me pin point these

14 December 2022 - Justin meets with Blake

31 December 2022 - Blake accepts lead role

22 April 2023 - Justin askes Trainer about her weight for lifting scene

25 April 2023 - Penthouse confrontation about the weight request

1 May 2023 - Daily script changes begins, Blake changing the script

15 May 2023 - First day of shooting

---

Let's get into the text:

#🔴14 December 2022 - Justin meets with Blake

#🔴31 December 2022 - Blake accepts lead role

##🟣 12 April 2023 - Blake and Taylor In this exchange, before any alleged wrong doing by Justin we have Blake asking Taylor to lie about her(Ryan) script rewrites to manipulate him by having "the worlds best story teller" telling him how great her(Ryan) version is. And she is already calling him a doofus and clown here...

https://preview.redd.it/aq61k6iowh1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2151926c3046a7428add5b8f9b0323a0e867d472

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.20.pdf

🌸 As requested by u/959539622 I'm adding the meanings of the words here
Doofus: a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person
Clown: 1. someone who performs in a circus, who wears funny clothes and makeup, and who tries to make people laugh. 2. someone who often does funny things to make people laugh. 3. informal : a rude or stupid person

🌸In this instance her(Ryan) is not a play on words from Sony execs. It's because this very scene she asked Justin to use her version of, she credited Ryan as being the writer during an interview we've all seen by now and in this Second clip

##🟣 12-13 April 2023 - Blake and Taylor Making fun of how they deceived him and him not knowing pop culture while still calling him a clown

https://preview.redd.it/1i2pnr7wwh1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8110411f9ccbba4bec6482bf0a7f2d80e5790786

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.21.pdf

#🔴22 April 2023 - Justin askes Trainer about her weight for lifting scene

a reminder on what the Judge said about the Fat shaming allegations

⬇️⬇️⬇️ Lively’s complaints of “fat-shaming” also could not reasonably support a claim. Shortly before work on the Film began, Lively gave birth to a child. See R.56.1 ¶ 75. She expressed to Baldoni that she “want[ed] to be in [her] best shape” for filming. R.56.1 ¶ 33; Shapiro Decl., Ex. 40. On or around April 23, 2023, before principal photography began, Baldoni asked a personal
trainer he had consulted with, and who was working separately with Lively, if the trainer knew what Lively would weigh when filming began. R.56.1 ¶ 78. Baldoni’s question then found its way back to Lively, who felt “disturbed and unsettled that Baldoni was soliciting information about [her] weight.” Lively Decl. ¶ 7. On another occasion, Baldoni introduced Lively to a specialist in probiotics, who Lively subsequently discovered also specialized in weight loss. SAC ¶ 108; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 5–6. Evidence that an employer made weight-related comments to persons of one only gender could in certain circumstances help demonstrate a hostile work environment based on sex. See King v. Aramark Servs. Inc., 96 F.4th 546, 564 (2d Cir. 2024). Although the record here does not indicate whether any similar conduct was directed toward men, regardless, the conduct cannot reasonably be viewed as expressing hostility to Lively as a woman or to women in general. The physical appearance of the protagonists was part of the product that the producers were intending to offer the audience. Lively herself recognized that achieving a “certain aesthetic” was “part of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.” Shapiro Decl., Ex. 44. She asked Baldoni if they could do “the body scenes at the end of the schedule” so that she would have sufficient time to work out, R.56.1 ¶ 35; Shapiro Decl., Ex. 42; she wrote to her agent privately that she was “working out twice a day, 4 hours a day” in order to lose weight and set the movie up for success, as the “sexiness in this film and the marketing I’m sure, is critical to its success,” R.56.1 ¶ 36; Shapiro Decl., Ex. 36; and she told Baldoni, “My husband and I both look at certain roles as athletic events. And this is one of them. . . . And that’s great,” R.56.1 ¶ 37; Shapiro Decl., Ex. 44. Given these statements, Baldoni’s actions—even if they could be viewed as gently pushing Lively to lose weight, which is not necessarily supported by the evidence—could not fairly be described as discrimination “because of” Lively’s gender. ⬆️⬆️⬆️

##🟣 24 April 2023 - Blake and Louise Blake calls him a donkey. Tells Louise he asked her trainer about her weight regarding a lift scene and his back issues.

https://preview.redd.it/bgda1679xh1h1.jpg?width=1503&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=71dc241f0cdfbf94dc39d962ed89b442b4397883

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.40.pdf

Donkey: 1. the domestic ass (Equus asinus) 2. a stupid or obstinate person

#🔴25 April 2023 - Penthouse confrontation about the weight request

##🟣 24 April 2023 - Blake and Louise Blake calling Justin a bag of hot gas, a clown, narcissistic and terrified of women while gleefully telling Louise that he was audibly sobbing during the 3 hour meeting. Louise saying that he doesn't know what's about to hit him…

https://preview.redd.it/cvnlqzkdxh1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e17285adcf6578053f31398856be0fa456a3f766

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.41.pdf

Bag of hot gas: slang term—often shortened to just "hot air"—used to describe a person who talks excessively, boasts, or makes grand promises, but delivers nothing of substance. It describes boastful, empty, or pompous talk.
Cringe: so embarrassing, awkward, etc. as to cause one to cringe
Narcissistic: extremely self-centered with an exaggerated sense of self-importance : marked by or characteristic of excessive admiration of or infatuation with oneself

#🔴1 May 2023 - Daily script changes begins, Blake changing the script.

Alex saks already complaining, before filming begins, that Blake is changing the script and trying to direct the movie.

https://preview.redd.it/tuf77lehxh1h1.jpg?width=936&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de0e95787254625f49ad95aa12cb49a7af4fb710

This is not something she started doing to keep everyone safe later

#🔴15 May 2023 - First day of shooting

---

A great resource for texts in chronological order if you want to look into things yourself https://assholemedia.wordpress.com/unsealed-texts-timeline

---

So here we can see that she did not start calling him names after alleged SH happened. Nor did she start making changes because of chaotic set, which in my opinion she caused the chaos, or their alleged inexperience or for safety reasons. She was texting her friends, insulting him and his work before ever stepping foot on set. While having less experience than him at Directing and producing.

https://preview.redd.it/zn9fr6tmxh1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3afb76b5f0b802a646293a9dfeeed4e8a0def8e9

---

#Some related posts regarding their deceitfulness

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 6:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Blake's text pre-filming

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 5:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The Heath after birth video

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 4:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Trailer Incident

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 3:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Improvised Intimacy

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 2:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : HR complaints / reports

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 1:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The dance scene

Older posts:

🌸In multiple conversations with other celebrities she claimed Sony asked her to make their cut. It seems utterly false as I looked into the evidence given in discovery.
Sony cut or Blake cut

🌸The Birthing Scene: I looked into the claims she made about her state of dress during the birthing scene.
Birthing scene clothing

🌸Blake seemingly committing perjury in her deposition saying she didn't have dailies deleted:
Blake seemingly caught in another lie...

🌸Ryan and Blake wanted Baldoni to publicly apologize for the Marketing when they (in partnership with Sony) was responsible for it.
Who was responsible for the Marketing

🌸Lively taking Heath's word's out of context:
Context context BL SAC pt.23

I see we're getting a lot of "why do you hate Blake / why don't you believe Blake posts since the settlement was announced. This is post number 5 : The Heath after birth video

#🔴Her second amended complaint

To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth. Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied “She isn’t weird about this stuff,” as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.

##56.1 statement

117. Lively has testified that, sometime in late May 2023, Heath “very briefly” showed Lively an image of his wife giving birth. Ex. 24, Lively Dep.at 188:17–190:21. Lively said she stopped watching the video because there was “a naked woman” in it.

Plaintiff’s Response 117: Undisputed that the quoted language appears in Lively’s
deposition, but Lively respectfully refers the Court to the deposition transcript for its complete
contents.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Her deposition:

https://preview.redd.it/rhbdxnkv2d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2bc90153c0e2049f957aba38cc222bf537601a9

https://preview.redd.it/ithj05yx2d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55aad54fc36ef06b38d94041b2c11a9137276ee0

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1233.140.pdf

---

Blake also texted Louise ⬇️

https://preview.redd.it/byyvupg23d1h1.jpg?width=1821&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8121cd6b9595901fb395ff303168b9ac33bcb18e

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.26.pdf

Then we have testimony from Vivian Baker about what Blake told her she was shown by Heath

https://preview.redd.it/ekvtlpp93d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb79cc0d6a634e1d87efe3587964bcb879e866c7

https://preview.redd.it/myheslob3d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=75d0cf11858ee03d7dc64cd429e100a9bba24d56

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.13.pdf

In summary:

She alleged that out of the blue Jamey came over and showed her a "very brief" video of his wife giving birth in a tub with her legs spread wide. Telling Vivian that she a close up of Natasha Heath's crowning vagina and telling Louise that she saw her vagina and boobs... Her words not mine. And she immediately looked away when she realised it was a woman fully exposed.

---

🌸 My personal bias: I've never seen a waterbirth where the birthing section shows. NORMALLY in a home full water birth (which it seems Natasha had) the baby is born in the water and brought up. Logically there wouldn't be footage of the crowning head / private area as she would have to lift her body out of the water for that picture

---

#🔵 What Justin said: I can't link here cause it's from his deposition that was leaked where her lawyers doxxed him. Thus adding screenshots

https://preview.redd.it/93jnbjjp3d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b2a44a1a82f6ba726908de217d9a751b2fbc3a5

https://preview.redd.it/58knshrq3d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=458f4c7799c564f49e2f9150c1e1540f2e694d6a

In summary:

1. He asked Heath to show the video
2. He only knows about the after birth video (no privates showing)

---

#🟣 What Jamey said: I can't link here cause it's from his deposition that was leaked where her lawyers doxxed him. Thus adding screenshots

https://preview.redd.it/xh4ehjrz3d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd01d0fd891bc655651034d49507911971af63e5

https://preview.redd.it/512mncu14d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ffb599428cb18c0c4f963f7197ad6cbf2deb4d9

https://preview.redd.it/midttla34d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ac2ca4e6ff75bec8a6ecf8106297947544983b1

https://preview.redd.it/7vgvp5j44d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6f06c80398ac006837ec1a8c81a47d3e90e34fd

https://preview.redd.it/t08fmt664d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f304a9d7bf6b251f308a1205a8c52a5d14be46a

https://preview.redd.it/8mkriyk94d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39277b7f017b24aa7bf197df51db7f0073245716

https://preview.redd.it/89163t9c4d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01e88fe355b9204adf8802a2ecf78f31eace6398

https://preview.redd.it/f20a3nee4d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65c20be33c0f4d217a8c0625ce6c572481d1a7cb

https://preview.redd.it/q0gxfw0f4d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=693d29606fedb8da9b34c6940205889a413ee936

https://preview.redd.it/cvi7foff4d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e903820f0dc2f255ffb6f0fd7f294087d28d5033

In summary:

1. He told Blake it's the video that she wanted to see
2. It wasn't a video of Natasha giving birth but an after birth video
3. He was behind her in the tub
4. He only had the one version on his phone
5. Blake only viewed the video half a second
6. The baby was born underwater and brought up...
7. When asked if the crowning is on a separate video he intentionally says "the baby being delivery, yes for sure" baby being delivered doesn't mean a the crowning was captured

We have now seen what Blake alleged happened and Justin and Jamey alleged happened

The only independent source we have on this is Ange.

---

#🟡 Ange deposition:

https://preview.redd.it/3xfqed0n4d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90498987e9ba0257c89a87c69a9d87ad5e3c54c6

https://preview.redd.it/ibns8evn4d1h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=94730162090e91a59f69dc773be1e8f1d5e08305

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.3.pdf

In summary:

1. Jamey showed her the video after he showed it to Blake.
2. She saw Natasha in the tub
3. She did not see any genitals
4. She saw someone behind Natasha
5. Blake didn't ask her to do anything about it

---

I believe the only person who spoke independently that had nothing to gain. And whoever's version matches her's the closest

##I believe women, I believe Ange

---

##On request I'm adding in the below for the people who want to see the footage, posts made by u/ytmustang

Post with the video Natasha shared on mothersday.
🌸 Take note this has videos from both her son and daughters birth. The video in question is the second one

Post of the still image of what Blake allegedly saw

---

#Some related posts regarding their deceitfulness

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 6:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Blake's text pre-filming

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 5:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The Heath after birth video

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 4:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Trailer Incident

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 3:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Improvised Intimacy

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 2:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : HR complaints / reports

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 1:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The dance scene

Older posts:

🌸In multiple conversations with other celebrities she claimed Sony asked her to make their cut. It seems utterly false as I looked into the evidence given in discovery.
Sony cut or Blake cut

🌸The Birthing Scene: I looked into the claims she made about her state of dress during the birthing scene.
Birthing scene clothing

🌸Blake seemingly committing perjury in her deposition saying she didn't have dailies deleted:
Blake seemingly caught in another lie...

🌸Ryan and Blake wanted Baldoni to publicly apologize for the Marketing when they (in partnership with Sony) was responsible for it.
Who was responsible for the Marketing

🌸Lively taking Heath's word's out of context:
Context context BL SAC pt.23

I see we're getting a lot of "why do you hate Blake / why don't you believe Blake posts since the settlement was announced. This is post number 4: The Trailer incident

More posts linked below

🔴 Combined testimony table

Category	Complaint (Lively’s account)	Heath deposition (Heath’s account)	Vivian Baker deposition (Baker’s account)	Shelley-Anne Carroll deposition (reconciled)
Heath arrival	Heath allegedly arrived unannounced at Blake Lively’s hair and makeup trailer while she was having body makeup removed and was topless.	Heath testified that Lively had requested a meeting earlier that day and later told him she was returning to her trailer and asked whether they could meet her there. He says he, Justin Baldoni, Ange Giannetti, and Alex Saks went together, and he knocked on the door.	Baker testified that Heath came to Lively’s trailer while Baker and Anne Carroll were working with her. She says there was a knock at the door, followed immediately by all three women reacting and telling the person outside not to come in.	Carroll testified that Heath came to the trailer while Lively was being “processed” and undressed. She says they “heard the door open” and then saw “Jamey at the door,” suggesting he opened the door before receiving permission.
Was he invited in (specific words used)	Lively says she asked Heath to wait until she was dressed. Heath allegedly responded that if she did not allow him into the trailer immediately, there would be no meeting with the other producers. She then allowed him in, asking that he keep his back turned.	Heath testified he heard “some indication to come in” after knocking. He says he told her, “oh, it looks like you’re busy, I can come back,” and that Lively replied: “No, that’s okay. You can come in, just look away.”	Baker testified that he was not invited in. She recalled Lively saying: “No, I’m not dressed. No, no, no. Don’t come in.” She says she, Anne, and Blake all said loudly, “No, no, no. Don’t come in” and “Not now,” but “they came in.”	Carroll testified that he was not invited in. She recalls Blake saying, “Whoa, whoa… Don’t come in,” and confirmed Heath entered “without knocking, without permission.” She says Heath responded: “It will only take a second.”
What did he do once he entered	Heath entered and began discussing the matter. During the conversation, he allegedly turned around despite her request and looked at her while she was still undressed.	Heath says he walked over to the side and looked away. He testified they spoke for 2–3 minutes about whether the larger meeting would happen that night or the next day, then he left the trailer and returned to the others outside.	Baker says Heath did not leave after entering, despite requests. She recalls Lively saying words to the effect of “I’ll talk to you about this later… I’ll get dressed. We’ll talk about it later,” and Heath responding “No, we’ll do it now.” She says he remained standing in the doorway, with the door partly open, while speaking to Lively.	Carroll testified that Heath stayed in the trailer and had a discussion with Blake, despite the warnings. She later changed her own practice and began locking both the sliding interior door and the exterior trailer door to prevent it happening again.
How was he looking at her	Lively says Heath was looking directly at her while she was topless. When confronted, he allegedly said it was his “habit of wanting to look at a person while speaking to them.”	Heath denies staring and testified: “I never saw the front of her.” He says he only saw her from an angle, believed she was “either feeding or nursing or pumping,” and complied when asked to “look away.”	Baker testified that Heath was positioned so he could see Lively through the mirror, stating: “He was looking in the mirror.” She confirmed that if he looked there, he could see Ms. Lively topless, and said he did not turn his back.	Carroll testified that her back was to Heath while she tried to shield Blake, so she did not directly observe him staring. However, she confirmed that if he looked in the mirror, he would be able to see Blake’s exposed breasts.
Was she covered	According to the allegation, no. She was described as topless, having body makeup removed, and still in a state of undress when he entered.	Heath says he did not know she was “in a state of undress” and testified he didn’t see what she was wearing or not wearing. He believed she was breastfeeding, nursing, or pumping.	Baker testified that Lively had removed her clothes, was wearing only underwear, and that “her breasts were exposed.” She says Lively was breastfeeding her baby at her right breast, while her left breast was exposed, until Baker eventually threw a small towel over the other breast.	Carroll testified Lively was wearing “either nothing or a nude thong” and that “Ms. Lively’s breasts were exposed.” She says she grabbed a cutting cape and held it up to cover her. Carroll also testified it would have been obvious to Heath she was undressed “once he stepped up into the trailer.”
Immediate aftermath	The complaint states that Lively and her hair and makeup artists were deeply disturbed by the incident, and it later led to a formal on-set protection prohibiting anyone from entering her trailer while she was undressed.	Heath testified that Lively said nothing at the time indicating discomfort, came out 4–5 minutes later, greeted the group, and participated in the larger meeting. He says he did not learn she viewed the incident differently until reading the complaint.	Baker described the incident as “uncomfortable” and said it “felt like a violation.” She testified that requests not to enter had been ignored multiple times, and that she focused on working quickly to get Lively dressed. She also said she had never seen anything like this on another film set.	Carroll described the interaction as “uncomfortable” and “strange,” and testified Heath’s conduct was “inappropriate.” She said “we had warned him… she was in a state where nobody else should have seen her in that way. And he stayed.” She later began locking the trailer doors to prevent it from happening again.
Source document	CourtListener PDF – Complaint / Docket 521	Heath Deposition (Document 1211-9)	CourtListener PDF – Vivian Baker Deposition (Document 1230-13)	CourtListener PDFs – Carroll Depositions (Docs 1230-23 & 1367-8)

As this is an opinion piece, it is my opinion that there might have been some reframing happening after the fact. As we've seen with Isabela and allegedly with Christy Hall.

If I look at what Blake, Jamey, Vivian and Anne alleged this seems to me to be the most likely to have happend.

1. Heath's arrival: Jamey knocked before he entered.
   Why do I think this?
   Ange, Alex and Justin were with him outside and any of them could verify if that is true or not. Also Jamey and Vivian Baker confirm that he knocked.
   ⚠️ Carroll does not recall him knocking
2. Was he invited in: I believe he heard "Come in"
   Why do I think this?
   Jamey said he heard come in. Vivian said they shouted "No, no, no. Don’t come in." Carroll said Blake shouted " Whoa, whoa… Don’t come in". Realistically it's very possible that Jamey only heard the last part clearly. As stated before Ange, Alex and Justin were with him outside and any of them could verify if that is true or not.
3. He was invited to stay
   Why I think this?
   Jamey said he was willing to come back later but Blake said he could stay. Blake also confirmed in her complaint that she "eventually" told him he could stay Once again Ange, Alex and Justin were with him outside and any of them could verify if that is true or not.

Here's where things are more difficult to determine

4. What did he do once he entered
   I don't believe he looked at her directly
   Why I think this?
   Jamey says he came in and only saw her from an angle, not from the front. Carroll didn't see him as her back was towards him. Blake and Vivian both have different recollections with Blake saying Jamey turned around looking at her while she was undressed. Vivian said that he could see Blake in the mirror from where he was standing(not that he did) in the door of the trailer if what Vivian said is true Ange, Alex and Justin would be able to verify this as they were right outside the door with him. Carroll also said IF he stood there he would be able to see Blake in the mirror. The only thing that seems to line up is that he wasn't looking directly at Blake. Unless you believe Blake

5. Was she covered?
   I believe she was breastfeeding topless
   Why I think this?
   According to Blake she was topless, according to Vivian Blake was only in underwear and Vivian covered her left breast with a small towel. According to Carroll Blake was naked or wearing a thong and she grabbed a cutting cape and held it up to cover her. Apparently both women remember themselves covering her but not that the other also moved to cover her. Jamey doesn't remember what she was wearing only remember from the angle it looked like she was breastfeeding.

I believe the thing that caused confusion would be that if she was comfortable breastfeeding infront of them in the past and she told him he could stay that made him comfortable staying while not looking at her. I think in future he would not stay even if invited in a workplace situation.

#🔵What did Ange say about this?

https://preview.redd.it/pe7zxvnpr51h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f726d9890de5eba5196bdb3255b522f39d99109

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.3.pdf

Ange is very clear about what happened outside the trailer. It's only what happens inside that's she is telling what was told to her.

#🟣 According to the timeline Day 2 of filming was on 16 May 2023

https://preview.redd.it/sun30prtr51h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=89d129db52d2d78e045ab1d17a065cfafe08a4b4

https://penpres.com/thecut/blakestein/timeline

Then on 01 June 2023 they have a meeting about grievances

https://preview.redd.it/j7p3rxjwr51h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f196fa782f9d45dc6ee68981fa0a98f684795b5f

#🟢Alex Saks tells Ange what Blake said thet meeting with herself, Jamey and Justin.

https://preview.redd.it/fflyhz5zr51h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f042d328f8ca72d859eea78542521752fa76082a

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.30.pdf

We have no information on what Jamey's reaction was to her accusations but given that they just realized she was twisting things out of context and trying to figure out how to handle the situation I'm assuming they wouldn't have said anything more than I'm sorry that was your experience.

##Thoughts: why were Ange, Alex and Justin all only questioned about the subsequent meeting in regards to the text Alex sent Ange? If they were all present why weren't they asked if Jamey knocked or if they heard "come in" or if Jamey said he'd come back later? Her lawyers made a point of only asking about the text and asking if the meeting went as the text stated.

---

#Some related posts regarding their deceitfulness

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 4:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Trailer Incident

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 3:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Improvised Intimacy

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 2:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : HR complaints / reports

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 1:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The dance scene

Older posts:

🌸In multiple conversations with other celebrities she claimed Sony asked her to make their cut. It seems utterly false as I looked into the evidence given in discovery.
Sony cut or Blake cut

🌸The Birthing Scene: I looked into the claims she made about her state of dress during the birthing scene.
Birthing scene clothing

🌸Blake seemingly committing perjury in her deposition saying she didn't have dailies deleted:
Blake seemingly caught in another lie...

🌸Ryan and Blake wanted Baldoni to publicly apologize for the Marketing when they (in partnership with Sony) was responsible for it.
Who was responsible for the Marketing

🌸Lively taking Heath's word's out of context:
Context context BL SAC pt.23

I see we're getting a lot of "why do you hate Blake / why don't you believe Blake posts since the settlement was announced. This is post number 3: Improvised Intimacy
##More posts linked below

#🔴 Her second amended complaint

80. Without these protections in place, Mr. Baldoni improvised physical  intimacy that had not been rehearsed, choreographed, or discussed with Ms. Lively, with no intimacy coordinator involved. For instance, Mr. Baldoni discreetly bit and sucked on Ms. Lively’s lower lip during a scene in which he improvised numerous kisses on each take that were not preapproved in the script and without an intimacy coordinator there. Mr. Baldoni insisted on shooting the full scene over and over again, well beyond what would have been required on an ordinary set, and without advance notice, conversation, or consent.

#🔵Some key points here.

1. She claimed he kissed her without advance notice, conversation, or consent.
   ➡️Evidence shows: We have already seen in the first post about the dance scene that Blake claimed he tried to kiss her without consent but the video shows that he informed her he would try to kiss her and she said "great".

2. She makes a point of stating that the improvised intimacy (which according to the paragraph was kissing) happened without an Intimacy Coordinator present.
   ➡️Evidence shows: According to the Intimacy Coordinator there didn't need to be an Intimacy Coordinator present for kissing scenes at the time of shooting...

https://preview.redd.it/3h1pf1uli31h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8208efcd65dc81a2bb9cd904ddd1c708f0c06bb5

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.14.pdf

#🟣 Rules for thee but not for me:

As many of us who followed the case have come to know, Blake tends to want rules applied to everyone else while she has the freedom to do what she wants.

So let's look at the footnote (yes the place most gems are hidden in by the lawyers) she had added to the second amended complaint:

⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️ 16 The fact that Ms. Lively varied the number of kisses in other scenes in which the kissing was scripted in advance does not justify Mr. Baldoni’s improvisations or his attempts to add graphic sex scenes into the Film. In other scenes, the kissing was consistent with the plot, it had structure and blocking, and most importantly, it was discussed in advance and was mutually consensual. There can be flexibility in such scenes, but it must be within appropriate boundaries, and the key is advance planning and consent. Mr. Baldoni acted without planning, without consent, and grossly outside of acceptable boundaries. He made it personal and repeated, even after Ms. Lively spoke up, and became defensive and dismissive when challenged, no matter how politely she mentioned it. ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️

Her footnote seem to say that:

1. She could improvise the number of kisses as long as it's scripted
2. That doesn't mean Baldoni could improvise kisses or add sex scenes.
3. When she did it, it was consistent with the plot.
4. Advanced planning and consent made it acceptable for her to do this.

##Let's test this shall we?

1.She could improvise the number of kisses as long as it's scripted
➡️Evidence shows: In two scenes (The engagement scene and the I love you scene) Blake added unscripted kisses and repeated it in multiple takes. 🤔 Was it coincidence that she chose to do this on the day that Emily Baldoni was on set playing the doctor who did the ultrasound... Not mean girl behaviour over here...

She oversaw a scene in which there was unscripted kissing (including her character kissing Baldoni’s). And 56.1 ¶177; Ex. 104. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1242.0.pdf

Ann Fromholz report

https://preview.redd.it/nk2vqqqsi31h1.jpg?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7fab5f653160f454e8cd572577c9366a77622b06

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1325.4_1.pdf

White production draft script

Hospital hallway scene

Proposal scene

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1230.135.pdf

🌸 Extra one:
Unscripted kisses and physical touches initiated by Blake Lively even after the 17-pt demand letter by u/Enough_Gur_8833

2. That doesn't mean Baldoni could improvise kisses or add sex scenes.

##The utter hypocrisy

Her complaint that Baldoni added intimate scenes fails for the same reason. Lively does not dispute that she, too, revised the script to increase the “sexual tension.” 56.1 Opp. ¶¶29, 218, 219.2. Any gendered animus is further undermined by undisputed facts that Lively was invited to discuss her views about the intimate scenes with a female intimacy coordinator before filming, and proposed revisions. 56.1 Opp. ¶¶50, 52-54, 87-89; Ex. 56.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1247.0.pdf

3. When she did it, it was consistent with the plot.
   ➡️Evidence shows: Even the judge found that BOTH actors were shown to be improvising in what is consistent with the plot

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1273.0.pdf

4. Advanced planning and consent made it acceptable for her to do this.
   How can unscripted and improvised kissed be planned?

#I'm not saying it is right to have unscripted , improvised or nonconsensual kisses.

I'm saying you can not have dirty hands (crossed the line yourself) and then accuse the same person you did it to of SH for that same behaviour. How are we supposed to believe that you viewed this behaviour as harrassment, seriously enough to sue someone over while actively doing it to someone else?

---

#Some related posts regarding their deceitfulness

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 4:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Trailer Incident

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 3:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Improvised Intimacy

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 2:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : HR complaints / reports

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 1:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The dance scene

Older posts:

🌸In multiple conversations with other celebrities she claimed Sony asked her to make their cut. It seems utterly false as I looked into the evidence given in discovery.
Sony cut or Blake cut

🌸The Birthing Scene: I looked into the claims she made about her state of dress during the birthing scene.
Birthing scene clothing

🌸Blake seemingly committing perjury in her deposition saying she didn't have dailies deleted:
Blake seemingly caught in another lie...

🌸Ryan and Blake wanted Baldoni to publicly apologize for the Marketing when they (in partnership with Sony) was responsible for it.
Who was responsible for the Marketing

🌸Lively taking Heath's word's out of context:
Context context BL SAC pt.23

I see we're getting a lot of "why do you hate Blake / why don't you believe Blake posts since the settlement was announced. This is post number 2: HR complaints / reports ##More posts linked below

#🔴Her Second Amended Complaint

11. A few days later, on May 26, 2023, Ms. Lively reported her concerns regarding unwelcome and inappropriate behavior by Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath, the Chief Executive Officer of Wayfarer and Producer of the Film, to Sony employee Ange Gianetti, the  Film’s representative for its distributor Sony Pictures Entertainment.

12. When Ms. Lively reached out to Ms. Gianetti, who was supportive, Ms. Gianetti texted Ms. Lively that “what i did want to review/discuss feels very very small in light of today’s news. I'm so sorry . . . calling you in moments.”

13. In that conversation with Ms. Gianetti on May 26, 2023, Ms. Lively told her that she wanted to file an HR complaint about both Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath’s misconduct. Although she was sympathetic, Ms. Gianetti told Ms. Lively that Sony, as the distributor of the film, was not empowered to oversee physical production, which included Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath’s behavior on set, and that such concerns must be raised with Wayfarer, the studio responsible for the production. Ms. Lively was concerned with this response because Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath were the Chairman and CEO of Wayfarer, and Mr. Baldoni was the Director of the Film. Ms. Lively did not believe that either Mr. Baldoni or Mr. Heath would investigate their own alleged misconduct—and that disbelief was proven by subsequent events

14. After unsuccessfully attempting to raise concerns with Sony, Ms. Lively expressly told Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath that there were serious HR problems on set. Mr. Heath responded that they knew, implying that someone had mentioned to them that Ms. Lively had raised concerns. In response, Mr. Heath told Ms. Lively that he thought she had wanted to see the nude video of his wife.

🌸 We see a very specific language use here. In the complaint she used phrases like " HR complaint, HR grievances, HR problems and Multiple detailed reports" giving the reader the distinct impression that she filed official HR reports.

So let's see what else is available from discovery about these HR Complaint

#🟣Ange Gianetti: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.3.pdf

https://preview.redd.it/vzcwnflqlx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a31a66dbf01efb707cdf30f9229c41fa0c938eb3

https://preview.redd.it/6nk4nb1slx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3bc5562ece717e76ee1bfd6e3e71f17b98ad3884

https://preview.redd.it/n5fao0dtlx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aa6f96c29647257c3991ebead0c75e4af1d28bf9

https://preview.redd.it/2yas4gwulx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c3de58c7844cb40f8059c19ad1980091fb2f6c5

https://preview.redd.it/f3nt243wlx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=130dcc1133d8404056f6a0cf68d899e3e2cb4218

I've added in the pages for context. I underlined the important parts but context is important.

As you'll see Blake only ever asked to file a HR report about Covid, in person. At no point did she ask Ange for help regarding an HR report regarding SH. And the text Lively quoted in her complaint was about her baby possibly being exposed to Covid after recently being sick with RSV. Nothing to do with SH like she tried to paint it in the complaint

#🔵Blake to her talent agent: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.54.pdf

https://preview.redd.it/bzmstci1mx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b2a47fccc85ab8d352af9ce6d76ab03f2e8549f

In August (See Bryan Freedman question her about this) while discussing with her talent agent that Wayfarer is protective about the dailies, not wanting to share it with her, we see Blake saying to her agent that she has her HR report ready

#🟡 Blake's deposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1233.140.pdf

https://preview.redd.it/txt3br37mx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=814d6c658421d0d7eca20c0fe809d49f3bf71e2b

https://preview.redd.it/7cgq3498mx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f52ec5a65f6a7cdc07cd08bd98dbd1e0e7c376d9

But then when asked if she ever completed a HR report, she first ...seems... like she doesn't understand and then confirms that she never completed an HR report.

She once again has a different recollection from Ange regarding when / how and for what she asked to file an HR complaint.

#🟢 Never given the HR process by Wayfarer: On the call sheet (something they received everyday) we have the Hotline number they could call. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.33.pdf

https://preview.redd.it/hejzn7abmx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=05393f518bdda65a61101251b935d6d444fda71a

It has been determined that this company does HR managed aswell
https://www.vigilantehs.com/human-resource-consulting

https://preview.redd.it/sqpg1fvemx0h1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb387ece3d3b31c87929102553c51f5e0a0a6707

So once again, not even Blake herself can agree on whether she actually drafted , prepared or submitted a formal HR Report while trying her best to make it sound like she did

---

#Some related posts regarding their deceitfulness

🌸Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 4:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Trailer Incident

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 3:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : Improvised Intimacy

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 2:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : HR complaints / reports

🌸 Why I don't believe Blake Lively post 1:
Why I don't believe Blake Lively : The dance scene

Older posts:

🌸In multiple conversations with other celebrities she claimed Sony asked her to make their cut. It seems utterly false as I looked into the evidence given in discovery.
Sony cut or Blake cut

🌸The Birthing Scene: I looked into the claims she made about her state of dress during the birthing scene.
Birthing scene clothing

🌸Blake seemingly committing perjury in her deposition saying she didn't have dailies deleted:
Blake seemingly caught in another lie...

🌸Ryan and Blake wanted Baldoni to publicly apologize for the Marketing when they (in partnership with Sony) was responsible for it.
Who was responsible for the Marketing

🌸Lively taking Heath's word's out of context:
Context context BL SAC pt.23

Blake is now claiming her company co-produced It Ends With Us

Video link: Blake Lively Doing Revisionist History Over Her Takeover By Crediting It to B for Effort

Transcript:

What in the revisionist history is going on? Look at the lie that Lively and Reynolds are trying to peddle now.

"What's worth mentioning is that like Witherspoon and Kidman, Lively has her own production company and B for Effort and the banner co-produced It Ends With Us, which is now streamable with a Netflix subscription."

Since when? So you took over a movie and now you're claiming that your company, your company that has announced a bazillion movies that never came to light. Produced? Co-produced? Co-produced It Ends With Us? Excuse me? Since when? Give us the paperwork. I mean, you didn't even sign anything.

---

Thank you u/aledanpaf for providing the link to the article mentioned:

⬆️ The same people who put out an article that they want to do a sequel

---

#I've asked Chatgpt about this:⬇️

Q: Where was it first reported that B for effort co produced It ends with us

A: The first report I could find explicitly stating that Blake Lively’s production company, B for Effort, “co-produced” It Ends With Us is from CinemaBlend, published 11 May 2026.

The relevant line says:

“...Lively has her own production company in B for Effort, and the banner co-produced It Ends with Us.”

A few important notes:

Official film credits and studio materials do not list B for Effort as a production company. Sony’s official page lists only Wayfarer Studios and Saks Picture Company, with producers Alex Saks, Jamey Heath, and Christy Hall.

Blake Lively is listed as an executive producer, but B for Effort is not named in those official production-company credits.

I couldn’t find any 2023–2024 trade reporting (like Deadline, Variety, or The Hollywood Reporter) that identified B for Effort as a co-producer on the film.

So unless there’s a buried corporate filing or legal exhibit saying otherwise, CinemaBlend (May 2026) appears to be the first public source explicitly saying “B for Effort co-produced It Ends With Us”—and it may simply be inferring that from Blake’s executive producer role rather than citing formal production credits.

Fully Reconciled Master Timeline of events and allegations. With what each party claims about it.

Key

• ✓ AGREED / ADMITTED
• ⚠ DISPUTED INTERPRETATION
• ✖ DIRECT CONFLICT

---

2020–2021: Relationship Formation

Date	Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
May 7, 2020	—	—	Jonesworks hired by Wayfarer	—	—	✓ Contract begins
July 2020	Abel hired	✓ Same	Abel becomes lead contact	—	—	✓ Undisputed
July 2020	—	Personal phone number ported to company phone	—	—	—	⚠ Important later
Nov 2021	Confidentiality agreement	✓ Same	—	—	—	✓ Undisputed

---

Early 2024

Nathan launches independent PR firm

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Outside consultant	—	—	Admits TAG PR launched Jan. 2024	Implicitly consistent	✓ Nathan independent

---

Summer 2024 – It Ends With Us PR crisis begins

Crisis emerges

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Crisis exploited by Abel/Nathan	Legitimate client crisis	Genuine PR emergency	Admits crisis PR engagement	Admits PR crisis existed	✓ Crisis itself undisputed

---

Nathan retained

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Nathan aligned with Abel	Abel recommended Nathan	Nathan brought in to help	Admits she was retained	Admits Nathan engaged	✓ Fully established

---

Abel + Nathan working together

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Secret alliance	Professional PR work	Trusted handling	Admits collaboration	Acknowledges both were involved	✓ Collaboration is no longer disputed; only motive

---

Early August 2024

Scenario-planning memo

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Proof of anti-Lively campaign	Legitimate planning	Not central	Admits memo existed	Admits memo existed	✓ Memo existence confirmed by multiple defendants

---

August 8, 2024 — Daily Mail turning point

Who was working with media?

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Abel/Nathan planted stories	Jones contacted Daily Mail	Jones “left word” with Daily Mail	Admits articles published; denies planting	Does not admit improper media manipulation	✖ Responsibility remains sharply disputed

---

August 8–9, 2024

Wayfarer loses trust in Jones

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Abel falsely blamed Jones	Wayfarer turns on Jones	Jones told to stop acting	—	Does not contradict	✓ Abel + Wayfarer aligned; Baldoni does not challenge

---

Jones contacts Sony

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Baldoni
Trying to preserve relationship	Improper interference	Contacted Sony despite instructions	Does not dispute

---

August 12–15, 2024

Business Insider / Katie Warren article

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Abel/Nathan coordinated anti-Jones article	Not directly addressed	Not central	Denies close coordination	Does not add much	⚠ Strong dispute remains

---

“Going out of JW with a BANG” texts

Jones	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Proof of sabotage	Admits many texts, disputes meaning	Likely acknowledges communications exist	✓ Authenticity increasingly uncontested

---

Mid-August 2024

Abel prepares to leave

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Secret competitive move	Open departure	Jones reacts badly	No meaningful dispute	⚠ Motive unresolved

---

August 21, 2024 — Phone seizure

Confrontation / termination

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Abel caught stealing files	Unexpected accusation	Abel terminated	Limited knowledge	Limited knowledge	✓ Termination happened

---

Phone surrendered

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Legitimate evidence hold	Only for number transfer	Jones obtained phone	Neutral	Neutral	✖ Consent remains disputed

---

Phone data accessed

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Internal investigation	Unauthorized access to texts/iCloud	Jones obtained private communications	No meaningful rebuttal	No meaningful rebuttal	Abel + Wayfarer remain aligned and largely unrebutted

---

Late August–Fall 2024

Communications allegedly shared with Lively / Leslie Sloane / Ryan Reynolds

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Not wrongful	Jones shared communications	Same allegation	No strong contradiction	Does not contradict	Abel + Wayfarer aligned; others silent

---

“Smear campaign” accusation

Jones	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Abel/Nathan/Wayfarer ran smear campaign	Jones falsely accused them	Disputes characterization	Disputes characterization	⚠ Major legal battle over interpretation

---

September–October 2024

🟣Vanzan lawsuit / subpoena

Jones	Abel	Wayfarer	Nathan	Baldoni	Reconciliation
Legitimate legal process	Sham lawsuit	Same “veneer of legitimacy” theory	Neutral	Does not meaningfully rebut	Abel + Wayfarer aligned; little opposition beyond Jones

The only part of the case not settled apart from the 47.1 motion, according to Fritz, is the Jennifer Abel’s Motion for Conditional Summary Judgment Against Third-Party Defendant Jonesworks LLC

Abel's motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.946.0.pdf

---

NAG video on original filing https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/Jx4XCcfc2r

LGA video on original filing: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/fTtZ11aJPa

---

Just to review:

Side-by-side comparison of Jennifer Abel’s Motion for Conditional Summary Judgment (Dkt. 946 / later renewed in 1114) versus Jonesworks’ Opposition (Dkt. 1050/1057) on the indemnification issue. This is the core fight: Was Abel acting as a Jonesworks employee doing her job, or did she go beyond her authority such that Jonesworks should not have to cover her?

Issue	Abel’s Position (Dkt. 946)	Jonesworks’ Opposition (Dkt. 1050/1057)
1. Basic theory	If Abel is liable to Blake Lively, Jonesworks must indemnify her because everything she did was in the course of her employment.	Abel is not entitled to summary judgment because key facts are disputed; Jonesworks says she may have acted outside the scope of employment.
2. Scope of employment	All conduct alleged by Lively arose from Abel’s work as a Jonesworks publicist handling the Wayfarer/Baldoni account.	Some conduct may have been unauthorized, concealed, or beyond normal PR work, so Jonesworks should not automatically bear responsibility.
3. Direction/control by Jonesworks	Abel says Jonesworks directed, supervised, and approved her work in real time; Stephanie Jones allegedly interfered with strategy decisions.	Jonesworks argues Abel is overstating supervision and may have acted independently or contrary to firm policy, especially if “smear” tactics were involved.
4. Nature of the alleged conduct	Abel characterizes the actions as ordinary crisis communications/public relations work—media monitoring, messaging, reputation management.	Jonesworks argues Lively’s allegations involve conduct that, if true, could exceed legitimate PR and include improper targeted attacks, which would not be protected employment activity.
5. Fault / wrongdoing	Abel says she was “not at fault” and did nothing wrongful; if liability exists, it is only derivative of her role as employee.	Jonesworks argues common-law indemnity requires Abel to be personally faultless, and that cannot be decided now because her own conduct is disputed.
6. Employment contract	Abel argues her 2021 employment agreement provides contractual indemnification or defense rights.	Jonesworks likely argues the contract does not clearly cover this kind of litigation or does not apply under these circumstances.
7. Benefit to Jonesworks	Jonesworks was paid for the Wayfarer work and profited from her services, so it should bear the legal consequences.	Payment alone does not mean Jonesworks must indemnify conduct that was allegedly improper or unauthorized.
8. Evidence of company knowledge	Abel points to emails, account records, and communications showing Jonesworks knew what she was doing.	Jonesworks argues the record is incomplete and that disputed evidence prevents summary judgment.
9. Procedural argument	Abel says there are no genuine disputes of material fact, so the judge can rule now.	Jonesworks says there are many factual disputes, making summary judgment improper.
10. Desired outcome	Court should issue conditional summary judgment: if Abel loses to Lively, Jonesworks must reimburse/indemnify her.	Court should deny the motion and reserve indemnification issues until after liability is determined (or reject indemnification entirely).

---

The key legal fault line

Abel’s strongest argument

“Everything I’m accused of doing was my job.”

Her theme is:

• Jonesworks employed her;
• Jonesworks assigned her to Wayfarer;
• Jonesworks knew and benefited from the work;
• therefore Jonesworks cannot distance itself now.

This is strengthened by Judge Liman’s earlier ruling that Abel plausibly alleged she acted “in the course of her employment and at the direction of Jonesworks.”

---

Jonesworks’ strongest argument

“Even if she was our employee, that doesn’t mean we indemnify misconduct.”

Their likely theme:

• Abel may have gone beyond authorized PR conduct;
• indemnity fails if she was actively at fault;
• disputed facts about what she did prevent summary judgment.

This is legally powerful because common-law indemnification usually requires the party seeking it to be free of active wrongdoing.

---

What Judge Liman is likely deciding

The court is probably focused on three narrow questions:

1. Was Abel acting within the scope of employment?

If yes, Abel gains major ground. If disputed, summary judgment likely denied.

2. Is there evidence Abel acted independently or improperly?

If yes, Jonesworks can argue no indemnity.

3. Does the employment agreement independently require indemnification?

That could allow Abel to win even if the common-law theory is uncertain.

---

Practical stakes

If Abel wins:

• Jonesworks may have to pay her legal fees
• Jonesworks may have to cover any judgment against her
• financial risk shifts heavily to Jonesworks

If Jonesworks wins:

• Abel remains personally exposed
• Jonesworks can continue distancing itself from her conduct

Bottom line:

Abel’s motion says “Jonesworks must stand behind me because I was doing their work.” Jonesworks’ opposition says “Not if she crossed the line or acted on her own.”

Everyone is going on about BF saying there is no NDA or something like that

But I just read this:

The settlement agreement, "reviewed by PEOPLE, declares that Lively can still pursue legal fees and damages against Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties, whose $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively was dismissed by Judge Lewis J. Liman in June.

The settlement agreement notes that Lively is able to seek those fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, a statute which protects those who report sexual harassment or discrimination from retaliatory defamation suits. Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties "irrevocably waive[d] any appeal" in the settlement agreement.

https://preview.redd.it/yjtinlxolwzg1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e513838d8ae40c15c688151ce331f28f5c5fe08a

Blake Lively Declares 'Victory' amid Release of Settlement Details with Justin Baldoni’s Wayfarer

How is giving the whole settlement agreement to the press not worse than just saying your client can share his story? Cause it doesn't say Notice of settlement agreement like on the docket

🔴 What Jones alleges (Jones v. Abel)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.1.1.pdf

---

#1. Breach of Contract

• Abel allegedly violated her employment agreement by:

  • Taking confidential information

  • Competing improperly

  • Misusing company resources

---

2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

• As a senior employee, Abel owed loyalty to Jonesworks

• Allegation: she acted against the company’s interests while still employed

---

3. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

• Claims Abel took:

  • Client lists

  • Strategy documents

  • Internal communications

---

4. Unfair Competition

• Allegation that defendants used "improper methods to compete*

• Includes:

  • Misuse of confidential info

  • Coordinated client poaching

---

5. Tortious Interference (with contracts and business relationships)

• Defendants allegedly interfered with:

  • Jonesworks’ client contracts

  • Ongoing business relationships

---

6. Aiding and Abetting (against additional defendants)

• Other parties (e.g., competing firms/individuals) are accused of:

  • Helping Abel carry out the scheme

---

7. Conversion

• Claim that Abel wrongfully took property, including:

  • Data

  • Business materials

  • Possibly phone/accounts-related assets

---

8. Unjust Enrichment

• Defendants allegedly benefited financially from the misconduct

• Plaintiffs argue they should not be allowed to keep those gains

---

9. (In some versions/related pleadings) Defamation or related claims

• The complaint context suggests allegations of harmful statements or reputational damage, though this may be more developed in later pleadings

---

🔵 What Abel alleges (Jones v. Abel)

#Current status after Judge made a ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.139.0.pdf

Claim (from Abel’s Complaint)	Court’s Ruling (Dkt. 139)
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)	❌ Dismissed WITH prejudice (permanently dead)
Stored Communications Act (SCA)	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice (can re-plead)
Wiretap Act	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice
California Penal Code § 502	✅ SURVIVES
Invasion of Privacy	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice
False Light	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice
Conversion	✅ SURVIVES
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice
Promissory Fraud	❌ Dismissed WITHOUT prejudice

---

Legal counterclaims as re-pleaded before the Judge order:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.156.0.pdf

1. ❌ Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

• Allegation:

  • Unauthorized access to her phone/data

❌dismissed with prejudice (not fixable)

---

2. 🚫 Stored Communications Act (SCA)

• Allegation:

  • Unauthorized access to stored communications (e.g., iCloud/messages)

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

3. 🚫 Federal Wiretap Act

• Allegation:

  • Real-time interception of communications

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

4. ✅ California Penal Code § 502 (Computer Data Access)

• Allegation:

  • Unauthorized access and use of her data

---

5. 🚫 Invasion of Privacy

• Allegation:

  • Intrusion into private communications

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

6. 🚫 False Light

• Allegation:

  • Selective disclosure of messages created a misleading narrative

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

7. ✅ Conversion

• Allegation:

  • Wrongful control over:

• Phone number

• Data

• Digital access

---

8. 🚫 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

• Allegation:

  • Extreme and outrageous conduct

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

9. 🚫 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

• Allegation:

  • Emotional harm caused by negligent conduct

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

10. 🚫 Promissory Fraud

• Allegation:

  • Jones/Jonesworks:

• Promised to return her phone number

• *Never intended to do so"

🚫 dismissed without prejudice (can re-plead)

---

🟡 What Wayfarer alleges (Jones v. Abel)

#Current status after Judge made a ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.233.0\_1.pdf

Claim by Wayfarer (Counterclaims)	Court’s Ruling (Dkt. 233)
Breach of Contract – Confidentiality Provision	❌ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (fails as pleaded; no viable confidentiality breach shown)
Breach of Contract – Professional Performance Provision	❌ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (no specific failure to perform PR services in a contractually cognizable way)
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing	✅ SURVIVES motion to dismiss (plausibly alleges sabotage/undermining contract purpose)
Defamation per se	✅ SURVIVES motion to dismiss (alleged “smear campaign” statement plausibly defamatory + actual malice adequately pleaded)

---

Legal counterclaims as re-pleaded before the Judge order:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.51.0\_1.pdf

---

1. ❌ Breach of Contract – Confidentiality Provision

• Allegation:

  • Jonesworks and Jones breached the confidentiality provision by voluntarily and maliciously disclosing Confidential Information (as defined in the Agreement) to third parties, including, without limitation, Leslie Sloane, Blake Lively, and Ryan Reynolds.

❌dismissed with prejudice (not fixable)

---

2. ❌ Breach of Contract – Professional Performance Provision

• Allegation:

  • Jonesworks and Jones failed to render services “in a professional manner and in accordance with Wayfarer’s goals” and thereby breached the Agreement.

❌dismissed with prejudice (not fixable)

---

3. ✅ Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Allegation:

  • Even if not explicitly violating terms, Jonesworks:

• Destroyed the benefit of the contract

• You can’t secretly undermine a deal while technically performing it

---

4. ✅ Defamation per se

• Allegation:

  • On information and belief, Jones and Jonesworks made one or more statements to persons other than Wayfarer, including without limitation Leslie Sloane, Blake Lively, and Ryan Reynolds, to the effect that Wayfarer had retaliated against Lively and others for reporting alleged sexual misconduct, including orchestrating a “smear campaign” by propagating false and misleading narratives about Lively for the purpose of damaging her image and reputation.

---

🟣 What Nathan alleges (Jones v. Abel)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.37.0.pdf

---

1. Defamation

• Allegation:

  • Jones/Jonesworks made false statements of fact about Nathan

  • Those statements harmed her reputation

---

2. Tortious Interference

• Allegation:

  • Jones interfered with:

• Nathan’s business relationships

• Potential contracts or clients

---

3. False Light (or similar reputational/privacy claim)

• Allegation:

  • Nathan was portrayed in a "misleading and harmful way*

---

4. Unfair Competition / Business-related torts

• Allegation:

  • Jones engaged in improper competitive conduct affecting Nathan

---

5. Possibly aiding-and-abetting related theories

• If tied to broader allegations:

  • Nathan may assert she was wrongly accused of participating in misconduct

---

🟢 What Baldoni alleges (Jones v. Abel)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.38.0.pdf

---

1. Breach of Contract (or contract-based theory)

• Allegation:

  • Jonesworks failed to perform agreed PR services properly

---

2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Allegation:

  • Even if the contract wasn’t explicitly breached,

  • Jonesworks undermined the purpose of the relationship

---

3. Negligence / Professional Malpractice–type theory

• Allegation:

  • Jonesworks provided substandard PR advice/services

From the court’s summary of the allegations:

• Their work was described as:

  • “ham-fisted, unwelcome, and sporadic”

---

4. Business / reputational harm claims

• Allegation:

  • Jonesworks’ conduct contributed to:

• Negative media coverage

• Damage to Baldoni’s public image

---

5. (Potential overlap) Confidential information misuse

• Similar to Wayfarer’s claims:

  • Allegations may include improper handling or sharing of:

• Internal strategy

• Sensitive communications

---

---

#What's next?

ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference in this matter on August 19, 2026, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 15C of the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 8/19/2026 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 15C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lewis J. Liman. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 4/24/2026) (mml) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

This has been bothering me for a while and with yesterday's post about Isabela Ferrer I thought I'd look into it again.

On this video Ex. 110 Shout out u/Mysterio623 for linking it in this post, it was evidence from Wayfarer that there was a "hugging culture" that happened with men and women so it was not SH happening.

But what intrigued me was the dynamic between Justin and Isabella.

---

For the timeline context, the video is dated 21 June 2023. This is after the Ryan had screamed at him about the so called "fat shaming", after the trailer incidents, after Blake want the first AD fired and allegedly complained about sexy comment and birthing video. And a few days after being forced to fire the 1st AD by Blake. Blake then flies to London and refuses to return to work and Justin shuffles things around to shoot the younger casts scenes... At this stage I expect Justin to be withdrawn and closed off cause he is dealing with a lot.

---

Now looking at the video, first thing I noticed was how he was standing with a very closed off posture l, arms folded infront of him. Then when it seems like she moves closer he moves away subtly.

Then when the right paper is pulled he tried to give her a High 5, she takes it a step further intertwining her fingers with his and then comes in for a hug. It seems like he was blocking the hug by keeping his arm stiff and bringing it down in a motion that blocks the gap for the hug.

What intrigued me is that he seemed to want to distance himself before the hug.

Isabella also spoke in her Deposition about Justin encouraging the other actor (who is now her boyfriend) to get to know her.

Everyone has been joking(some more serious) that Blake had feelings for Justin...

Was Justin just being careful to not do anything that could be twisted again or did someone really try to cross his boundaries

I made a previous post to discuss the Jones v Abel case but my reviews were in the comments, I didn't know back then how to add things to the body of the post, so I'm making this updated one with the content in one place

Link to docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel

Stephanie Jones Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.1.1.pdf

Jennifer Abel Counter Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.36.0.pdf

---

---

I might be nitpicking here but where is the line with dishonest or misconstrued filings? When does it become a problem?

🔴Jones accusation:

65. Abel and Nathan explicitly discussed their plan to steal Wayfarer and Baldoni away from Jonesworks:
     (Screenshot dated 09 Aug 2024) Just for timeline purposes JA resigned 10 Jul 2024, last day was supposed to be 23 Aug 2024

https://preview.redd.it/6cxgkwsccazg1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bdf3b2b03be131e3e33601275e79a8c481c57ba

66. As Nathan made plain, "really good money" was the motivating force behind this scheme, not any special affection for Baldoni or Wayfarer. Indeed, Abel's candid communications, outside of Baldoni's and Heath's view, made clear that at the sametime as she was working to salvage Baldoni's reputation and steal his business, she actually held Baldoni personally in extremely low regard. For example, when a colleague described an article about a kissing scene between Baldoni and Lively as "so gross," Abel responded: (Screenshot dated 13 Jan 2024)

67. Then, months later, Abel was even more explicit in her disdain for Baldoni: (Screenshot dated 14 Jan 2024)

🌸So according to point 65 JA is trying to steal WF as a client on 09 Aug 2024. Then at point 66 they claim at the same time (09 Aug 2024) JA is badmouthing JB but it's dated 13 Jan 2024 (months before not the same time). Then point 67 they claim months later she was still badmouthing JB. Dated 14 Jan 2024, the literal next day after the date of point 66

https://preview.redd.it/h55rixpwcazg1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8957c5c55ec923e0d01d06ecdef44b717f4ee634

🔵Abel's reply:

65. Answering the allegations in paragraph 65 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the allegation that she and Nathan sent communications containing the text set forth in that paragraph. Defendant denies all of the remaining allegations in the paragraph, and specifically denies that the communications and their context are characterized accurately in the Complaint.
66. Answering the allegations in paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the allegation that she sent communications containing the text set forth in that paragraph. Defendant denies all of the remaining allegations in the paragraph, and specifically denies that the communications and their context are characterized accurately in the Complaint.
67. Answering the allegations in paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the allegation that she sent communications containing the text set forth in that paragraph. Defendant denies all of the remaining allegations in the paragraph, and specifically denies that the communications and their context are characterized accurately in the Complaint.

---

Another point being twisted. 

🌸If you read from about point 69 - this is where Sony let Jamey Heath know that SJ was causing trouble in the press regarding BL. SJ claims JA actually did it 

🔴Jones accusation:

69. The scheme worked. When the article was published, at first, key players in the Film's release-including Josh Greenstein, the President of Sony Pictures' Motion Picture Group-believed (correctly) that Abel was the person responsible for the story:

The screenshot reads: " Hi Jen - been informed you have been speaking to sites about bad blood between Blake and Justin. He was good on today show / If a negative story breaks It would hurt the movie. Josh Greenstein. 08.08.2024"

🌸➡️I'd like to point out that the language use here could be refering to "you" as Jonesworx the company not necessarily you as JA.

70. But Abel denied being the source and instead falsely told Sony's communications team that Jones was the leak.

🌸➡️Side note. Though SJ had the phone with the communications on and this complaint is full of screenshots of text, no text is added to proof
a) JA replied by text or
b) made a call at that time to Josh.
This seems to be conjecture.

71. This false allegation stuck. Rumors that Jones was behind the article began to make their way back to Wayfarer, causing Heath to respond with hostility:

The screenshot reads:  "From: JameyHeath To: Steph Jones To: Tera Flamks To: Jennifer I am hearing from Sony that quote "someone named Stephanie Jones" has responded out to Daily mail saying Blake is to blame and now this has escalated it all. We were purposely not responding to anything as to not fuel. This has fuel it. Everyone stand down unless I am aware of any moves. I don't care who is supposed to do what. I'm most interested in that. I'm interested only in any strategy being run by me. I need all to understand that." 08.08.2024"

72. WhenJones stated her intent to contact Sony to conect this misimpression, Heath instructed her to stand down

🌸➡️Okey jumping a bit ahead now. In summary the part in between SJ claims JA, JH and MN were colluding to make her seem bad and like she is the problem. And they orchestrated the situation. 

75. Heath and Abel bragged about the success of this strategy, jokingly referring to "the Leak"as being "the best decision" of a press trip that Abel and Nathan were accompanying Heath and Wayfarer on, and which Jones did not attend:
    Screenshot reads: "From: JameyHeath To: Jennifer Abel (owner) Best decision of this whole trip. 20 rows separated from 'the Leak' 10.08.2024"

🌸➡️Given the the context in point 71, that Heath believed Jones was leaking stuff to the press, the message at point 75 was obviously, to me at least, about them taking a trip without the person they believed to be "the Leak", leaking information. It is not confirmation that they were colluding and getting away with being the leak. Just celebrating her absence 

---

🌸From point 78 they are discussing an article published that SJ said JA worked with the publishers to attack her to steal her clients.

🔴Jones accusation:

78. On information and belief, in the subsequent two weeks, Abel and Nathan fed information to Warren to ensure that she moved forward with the article and that it was sufficiently critical of Jones. The contact between Abel and Warren included, at a minimum, a 27-minute phone call on July 30, and several phone calls on August 1 and August 12.

🌸HOWEVER if you read the article there are multiple times it states "A representative for Jonesworks said"

Given the fact that JA at this stage was still a senior employee at Jonesworx and they spoke to MULTIPLE previous clients and staff it is fair to assume that either
a) JA was the representative that gave commentary on the other peoples statements or
b) Even if she is not the representative spoken of here but one of the current employees who spoke out, this is still not a JA hitpiece.
The only definite reference here to a current employee (as JA was at that point) being:

"Nearly every person interviewed — whether Jones' former employees or fellow publicists — would do so only under the condition of anonymity, many because they were utterly frightened of her.

And

"In February, several current and former employees of the publicity firm received a text message urging the recipients to "band together" to sue Jones. "Contact a lawyer like Gloria Allred or a large employer protection law firm. And stay quiet," it read. The message was signed off by "a concerned friend of the agency / and former or current employer" who is "ready 4 a reckoning."

It seemed very neutral even pointing out when her behaviour was justified (like an employee lying about being sick and Jones being right about it) Given that , according to the article, SJ was aware of the article being worked on this wasn't a surprise attack by an employee.

"Jones declined multiple requests for an on-the-record interview for this story, instead sending an emailed statement via her representative."

So again the screenshots and allegations seems to be to a total misrepresentation

https://www.businessinsider.com/stephanie-jones-jonesworks-pr-clients-tom-brady-jeff-bezos

https://preview.redd.it/xdpk6v80eazg1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fccca51c35f8f5b4814cf8db8b3135cf49bbae2

The counter claim seems to fit this understanding 

🔵Abels reply:

50. These revelations caused a firestorm in Hollywood, resulting in a surge of negative  publicity regarding Jones, including the publication of the Business Insider piece entitled “Who’s Afraid of Stephanie Jones.” See Katie Warren and Jack Newsham, “Who’s Afraid of Stephanie Jones,” Business Insider (Aug. 17, 2024),

51. Abel was not responsible for the Business Insider piece and learned of it for the first time from Jones herself in or around early-July 2024.

---

https://preview.redd.it/9w6fddmbeazg1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fee4fc09e804a297783d43f3920ba9786be66fe1

🔴Jones accusation:

98. Indeed, when Jonesworks' information technology personnel disabled Abel's access to Jonesworks' servers after discovering her unauthorized downloading activity, Abel boasted that she was still able to steal all of the documents and information she needed to form her own competing firm:

Screenshot reads:
From. Alkla Jessop To: Jennifer Abel (owner) Oof. Did you get everything you needed before she did all of that? 20/06/2024 

Screenshot reads: From. Jennifer Abel (owner) To: Alkla Jessop Yes pretty much. I have my way around that shit because I have like 100s of different emails for each domain that I own so she can suck it. 20/08/2024

🌸I won't pretend to know whether JA stole actual company documents or not. Nor what this conversation was actually about. But it was clearly not about what is being alleged here.

From an IT point of view, on company servers you normally would need to be given permissions to access certain documents. At point 98 let's say Jones discover JA was stealing confidential documents (possible since as a senior employee she had access to many of those) the second the IT managers withdrew her permission/ consent she would not be able to access it anymore.

The second screenshot CAN NOT be about the info on Jonesworx server. She is specifically speaking of domains she owns. I'll explain it this way. 

Take Google the company. They own the domain for Google. com and so they can have many different emails that end in @ google.com. 

So JA is saying she can get around something, because she can use emails from different domains she owns. That does NOT mean she can get around Jonesworx security to access documents cause non of those 100s of emails would have been given permission to access any of Jonesworx documents. And that's if they even work through online / cloud servers. If it's direct servers at the office those emails would mean even less cause a computer user needs to be created and permissions given to access anything

---

Reading through BL SAC and if you compare the text at point 10 about hating women that's attributed to SJ in her claim and to BL in her complaint, it seems like it was about BL if you look at the timeline/time stamps so once again twisting what's being said to make her look like the vicitm

Side note:

Though Jones claimed they hired MN behind her back and she was unaware of it until much later, thanks to unsealed evidence on the BL vs WF docket we saw SJ knew about them deciding to use MN in July already

https://preview.redd.it/d8idl7fveazg1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cda114359b5308785bff1309cfd67ce2a8fccf70

View Poll

Reassessing now that they've settled

When this case is finished and Justin finally starts speaking publicly and sharing his lived experience, I personally, would love it if he didn't give MSM any time of day after the headlines they put out.

My question is, in a perfect world which reporters and content creators should he give his first interviews to?

In my perfect world he could do a panel with people who supported him during the case:

---

#Lawyers:

🔵 u/LittleGirlAttorney

🔵 u/CommittotheBritt

🔵 Not Actually Golden

#Content Creators:

🔵 Dave Neal

🔵 Lauren Nedigh (The Court of random opinion)

🔵 The Tilted lawyer

🔵 Elsie

🔵 Bocce

🔵 Flaa

🔵 Zack

🔵 Kenz/Existing to Thrive

🔵 Leanne Newton

#Reddit:

🔵AMA with this sub