Here we go again!

Last week, I was forced to publicly defend myself against accusations that I was working for Justin Baldoni.

You all witnessed a pro-Blake content creator take innocent interactions and my post summarizing Lauren's James Scott video, strip them of context, then turn them into a false narrative that I was somehow coordinating with Justin's team, even after I showed evidence directly contradicting that story. You all know how angry I was.

So imagine my surprise when, a week later, people supposedly on my "side" began accusing me of the complete fucking opposite. According to some of you, I guess now I work for Ryan Reynolds.

I would genuinely love to know when I’m supposed to receive a paycheck from all of these people I allegedly work for. Run me my money because I'm a single mother and broke af.

I'm literally a mod of Team JB. In that role, I've done my best to conduct myself in a way that reflects the standards I believe we are defending when we defend Justin, which includes fairness, evidence, decency, accountability, and not smearing people simply because you have decided you disagree with them.

I have also tried to protect the members of Team JB. Sometimes that has meant defending our members from harassment, addressing when WE got something wrong, or drawing boundaries that are unpopular. And sometimes, it means telling people on our own side, "No, we're not doing that here."

I have never believed that being a good mod means blindly validating every accusation or behavior made by someone who hates Blake. That's literally why you guys aren't allowed to comment on her body in Team JB My responsibility is not to prove how "anti-Blake" I am. It is to protect this community and uphold the principles that made me support Justin in the first place.

So after watching me do that and voluntarily spend my time defending and protecting this community, and literally days after watching Blake supporters accuse me of secretly working for Justin, some of you have now decided that because I won't validate your delusions about the mods of this sub, I must secretly be working for Ryan.

Um... okay??? How the fuck did we even get here in the first place?

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with noticing that something might seem weird and asking questions. God knows I've spent enough time looking into weird behavior on Reddit myself.

But there is a massive fucking difference between asking questions and deciding on the answer first, then treating everything that follows as proof you were right. This is textbook confirmation bias and is exactly where our community is starting to lose the plot.

You are allowed to think the rules of the sub are ridiculous and you are allowed to vocalize your opinion.

However, let's be very specific about what some people are actually mad about, because I think this has all gotten wildly distorted.

The mods have asked users not to use MJ's last name. That's it. You can still talk about MJ, you can still criticize MJ, you can still fact-check her content, disagree with her "legal" analysis, criticize the things she says publicly, and discuss her role in commentary surrounding this case.

Everyone knows who "MJ" is. No one is being prevented from discussing her.

The restriction is specifically that users have been asked not to use her last name because she is also connected to a Reddit identity, and the mods are trying to navigate Reddit's rules and guidance around discussing public content creators who are also current or former Reddit users.

I completely understand why you all think this rule is ridiculous.

Her name is public, she publicly creates content under her name, she has appeared publicly discussing this case. I get it, I do. So you're allowed to criticize that, say the rule is overly cautious, that Reddit's policies make no sense, and that maybe the mods are taking a more conservative approach than you personally would.

But it makes no fucking sense to risk the sub's safety or existence by breaking a rule just because you personally disagree with it. Because guess what? The mods themselves have admitted that they are ALSO frustrated with the double standards Reddit keeps applying to the sub. IEWL has gotten into trouble before. We were at risk of having all of our content nuked. This isn't a secret; the mods have been very transparent about that. They have LEGITIMATE reasons to be extremely careful about Reddit's rules because they don't want the sub to be taken down.

So what exactly is the more reasonable explanation here?

That a mod team whose sub has already gotten into trouble with Reddit, who has publicly acknowledged being frustrated with Reddit's guidance, and who has literally told everyone they are trying to get clarification from Reddit is being overly cautious because they don't want their community nuked?

OR that Stephanie Jones, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Nick Shapiro, or whoever the fuck else has somehow infiltrated a Reddit mod team and is secretly directing them to make you type "MJ" instead of her last name?

Come on.

Again, you do not have to agree with the rule. The mods don't like the situation they're in either. You are completely free to complain that the rule is dumb while still respecting it so that THEY are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of you deciding Reddit's rules shouldn't apply.

It is completely illogical to deliberately break a clearly communicated rule, receive the predictable moderation response, and then point to that response as evidence that there's some secret conspiracy happening. At that point, you are manufacturing your own evidence and victimizing yourself in a completely preventable situation.

I am done with these conspiracy theories. Because seriously, what could the mods even do atp to convince you they are NOT secretly working for whoever you've decided is pulling the strings? The mods are all operating under anonymous accounts specifically because moderating this community has already made them targets. They were protecting themselves from Blake supporters. Some of you have made it so that they now need to protect themselves from us too.

The mods are not some random strangers who appeared yesterday. They've been part of the community since the beginning. We've all interacted with them and trusted them enough to participate in these spaces. If you knew who our mods actually were, I promise you'd feel SO silly for accusing them of being bought by Blake or Ryan because again, they've been here with us the whole time. But that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to keep trying to figure out who they are because one extremely problematic, disgruntled user with a vendetta keeps feeding you conspiracy theories that some of you have inexplicably decided to run with.

The mods are people who have spent their own time maintaining a space that gave us somewhere to openly criticize Blake when we felt overly censored everywhere else. So now because they've asked us not to type one woman's last name while they wait for clarification, some of you have decided that they're suspicious and working for Ryan? I'm sorry, but what the fuck?

Do they now need to risk being doxxed just so a bunch of Reddit users will believe they aren't secretly on Ryan's payroll? I think I've seen this film before! It happened to me just last week! Speaking from personal experience, conspiracy theories have a funny way of constantly demanding one more piece of evidence. And when that proof is provided, somehow it still isn't enough and the goalpost just moves again.

Predictably, my refusal to go along with the conspiracy has now become evidence of the conspiracy itself. I've already been told that making this post is somehow "proving their point", which is especially fucking funny because Blake supporters used the same line to bully me when I defended myself against the pro-Blake CC last week. Apparently if I defend myself against accusations that I work for Justin, that's suspicious, and if I defend myself against accusations that I work for Ryan, that's suspicious too. Is that what you all want? To sound EXACTLY like Blake supporters?

That's why I'm done with this. You are entitled to criticize IEWL but we shouldn't have to entertain any conspiracy theories being formed against the mods just because you got a 3 day ban for breaking rules they've clearly communicated.

You should all know better than this. We have spent more than a year criticizing Blake and her supporters for this exact same shit; starting with a conclusion and working backwards, treating suspicion/disagreement as evidence, moving goalposts when contradictory evidence appears, and deciding that anyone who disagrees must be a paid bot.

THIS LITERALLY HAPPENED TO ME LAST WEEK.

When the Minister of Male Pattern Delusion did this to me, everyone here understood exactly what was wrong with his reasoning. So why should that standard disappear when yall are the ones throwing accusations around?

It is asinine that yall can spend a year demanding evidence from Blake supporters and then suddenly decide that vibes are enough to accuse ordinary people of secretly working for Ryan. Can we pleaaaase NOT be complete fucking hypocrites?

One of the fundamental reasons I support Justin is that I believe Blake accused innocent people of things they did not do and then built a narrative around those accusations. I believe people were smeared because an allegation was repeated loudly and confidently enough that the accusation itself became proof of guilt in the public imagination. So I refuse to sit here and let anyone do the same exact thing to people we've trusted and have interacted with FOR OVER A YEAR.

This entire mess has made it painfully obvious to me that some of us have confused supporting Justin with simply opposing Blake and blaming her for everything at all costs. I think it's time we acknowledge that being "pro-Justin" and "anti-Blake" are no longer interchangeable and the difference matters.

Being pro-Justin requires evidence while being anti-Blake can survive on paranoia and suspicion alone. A pro-Justin position asks whether a claim is supported by the facts. An anti-Blake position starts with the assumption that Blake is guilty and works backwards from there. It does not need the full context because it already has the conclusion.

And more importantly, being pro-Justin should require us to uphold the values Justin has publicly associated himself with: the principles and perspective that drew many people to support him in the first place.

Being anti-Blake does not require any of that, which is why I think anti-Blake rhetoric can become toxic so quickly. It stops being about the strength of Justin's case and starts becoming about contempt for women. At that point, it's using Blake as an excuse for misogyny.

I think that distinction matters because there are people who use pro-Justin language while behaving in ways I do not believe Justin would ever condone. Trying to get women pushed out of communities, spreading unproven accusations about them, assigning motives to them, calling them brainwashed, treating every disagreement as proof of conspiracy, and framing women as dangerous or unstable because they refuse to fall in line is not "supporting Justin."

Many of us became interested in this case because we watched cherry-picked messages spread faster than context, assumptions get repeated as facts, and speculation harden into "truth" simply because enough people wanted to believe it.

So what exactly was the lesson? Personally, I've learned that context matters and that people should be extremely skeptical when they are only being shown the most emotionally convenient version of a story. Apparently for some, the lesson was just that Blake is bad, women are sus, and anyone who challenges the narrative must be discredited.

If you've been following along in this sub and the other one, you should be more skeptical of out-of-context screenshots and paranoia-based accusations by now. You should be more aware of how easily a person can be turned into a villain when people are only shown pieces that support that conclusion.

But anti-Blake rhetoric creates a weird permission structure where the same tactics we criticized suddenly become acceptable as long as they are being used against someone we've decided to outcast. Suddenly, screenshots do not need context, claims do not need evidence, motives can be assigned, and women can be called crazy, jealous, manipulative, or secretly aligned with Blake. And everyone is supposed to accept that framing because the person spreading it presents themselves as being on the "right" side. That is NOT being pro-Justin.

So here's the bottom line, the TLDR, if you will:

You are allowed to criticize this sub and think the rules are silly. You are allowed to criticize MJ, Blake, and whoever else supports her. You can even disagree with me!

But criticism and conspiracy are not the same thing. We cannot be slinging around false accusations against one another all willy nilly.

If supporting Justin means anything, it should mean refusing to do to innocent people what we believe was done to him. So criticize the rule all you want, but the conspiracy theories need to end here.

PS, Thank you to u/OneNoteWonder43, who made an astute point about this, which I'll leave here for your consideration:

"List of things that apparently weren't important enough to warrant censorahip:

1. Ryan's involvement Joi Harris' death
2. Ryan's arsonist activities
3. Every Eumonia Dyke article
4. Content about how they missed Swift's wedding, likely due to the credible allegation that they attempted to extort her for public support
5. Screenshots of Blake grabbing her scene partner's crotch and bragging about how she improvised this move

List of things that are apparently of utmost importance to censor, to the point of doing long term subtle manipulations and covert ops:

1. One small time content creator's last name

Yeah guys, the math doesn't quite math there for me, sorry. 🙃"

Here we go again!

Last week, I was forced to publicly defend myself against accusations that I was working for Justin Baldoni.

You all witnessed Expat take innocent interactions and my post summarizing Lauren's James Scott video, strip them of context, then turn them into a false narrative that I was somehow coordinating with Justin's team, even after I showed evidence directly contradicting that story. You all know how angry I was.

So imagine my surprise when, a week later, people supposedly on my "side" began accusing me of the complete fucking opposite. According to some of you, I guess now I work for Ryan Reynolds.

I would genuinely love to know when I’m supposed to receive a paycheck from all of these people I allegedly work for. Run me my money because I'm a single mother and broke af.

I'm literally a mod of this sub. In that role, I've done my best to conduct myself in a way that reflects the standards I believe we are defending when we defend Justin, which includes fairness, evidence, decency, accountability, and not smearing people simply because you have decided you disagree with them.

I have also tried to protect the members of this sub. Sometimes that has meant defending our members from harassment, addressing when WE got something wrong, or drawing boundaries that are unpopular. And sometimes, it means telling people on our own side, "No, we're not doing that here."

I have never believed that being a good mod means blindly validating every accusation or behavior made by someone who hates Blake. That's literally why you guys aren't allowed to comment on her body here. My responsibility is not to prove how "anti-Blake" I am. It is to protect this community and uphold the principles that made me support Justin in the first place.

So after watching me do that and voluntarily spend my time defending and protecting this community, and literally days after watching Blake supporters accuse me of secretly working for Justin, some of you have now decided that because I won't validate your delusions about the mods of IEWL, I must secretly be working for Ryan.

Um... okay??? How the fuck did we even get here in the first place?

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with noticing that something might seem weird and asking questions. God knows I've spent enough time looking into weird behavior on Reddit myself.

But there is a massive fucking difference between asking questions and deciding on the answer first, then treating everything that follows as proof you were right. This is textbook confirmation bias and is exactly where our community is starting to lose the plot.

You are allowed to think IEWL's rule is ridiculous and you are allowed to vocalize your opinion.

However, let's be very specific about what some people are actually mad about, because I think this has all gotten wildly distorted.

IEWL mods have asked users not to use MJ's last name. That's it. You can still talk about MJ, you can still criticize MJ, you can still fact- check her content, disagree with her "legal" analysis, criticize the things she says publicly, and discuss her role in commentary surrounding this case.

Everyone knows who "MJ" is. No one is being prevented from discussing her.

The restriction is specifically that users have been asked not to use her last name because she is also connected to a Reddit identity, and the mods are trying to navigate Reddit's rules and guidance around discussing public content creators who are also current or former Reddit users.

I completely understand why you all think this rule is ridiculous.

Her name is public, she publicly creates content under her name, she has appeared publicly discussing this case. I get it, I do. So you're allowed to criticize that, say the rule is overly cautious, that Reddit's policies make no sense, and that maybe IEWL is taking a more conservative approach than you personally would.

But it makes no fucking sense to risk the sub's safety or existence by breaking a rule just because you personally disagree with it. Because guess what? The mods themselves have admitted that they are ALSO frustrated with the double standards Reddit keeps applying to the sub. IEWL has gotten into trouble before. We were at risk of having all of our content nuked. This isn't a secret; the mods have been very transparent about that. They have LEGITIMATE reasons to be extremely careful about Reddit's rules because they don't want the sub to be taken down.

So what exactly is the more reasonable explanation here?

That a mod team whose sub has already gotten into trouble with Reddit, who has publicly acknowledged being frustrated with Reddit's guidance, and who has literally told everyone they are trying to get clarification from Reddit is being overly cautious because they don't want their community nuked?

OR that Stephanie Jones, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Nick Shapiro, or whoever the fuck else has somehow infiltrated a Reddit mod team and is secretly directing them to make you type "MJ" instead of her last name?

Come on.

Again, you do not have to agree with the rule. The mods don't like the situation they're in either. You are completely free to complain that the rule is dumb while still respecting it so that THEY are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of you deciding Reddit's rules shouldn't apply.

It is completely illogical to deliberately break a clearly communicated rule, receive the predictable moderation response, and then point to that response as evidence that there's some secret conspiracy happening. At that point, you are manufacturing your own evidence and victimizing yourself in a completely preventable situation.

I am done with these conspiracy theories. Because seriously, what could the mods even do atp to convince you they are NOT secretly working for whoever you've decided is pulling the strings? The mods are all operating under anonymous accounts specifically because moderating this community has already made them targets. They were protecting themselves from Blake supporters. Some of you have made it so that they now need to protect themselves from us too.

The IEWL mods are not some random strangers who appeared yesterday. They've been part of the community since the beginning. We've all interacted with them and trusted them enough to participate in these spaces. These are people who have spent their own time maintaining a space that gave us somewhere to openly criticize Blake when we felt overly censored everywhere else.

So now because they've asked us not to type one woman's last name while they wait for clarification, some of you have decided that they're suspicious and working for Ryan. I'm sorry, but what the fuck?

Do they now need to risk being doxxed just so a bunch of Reddit users will believe they aren't secretly on Ryan's payroll? I think I've seen this film before! It happened to me just last week! And speaking from personal experience, conspiracy theories have a funny way of constantly demanding one more piece of evidence. And when that proof is provided, somehow it still isn't enough and the goalpost just moves again.

That's why I'm done entertaining this. You are entitled to criticize IEWL. I will not tolerate any conspiracy theories being formed against the mods there just because you got banned for breaking rules they've clearly communicated.

You should all know better than this. We have spent more than a year criticizing Blake and her supporters for this exact same shit; starting with a conclusion and working backwards, treating suspicion/disagreement as evidence, moving goalposts when contradictory evidence appears, and deciding that anyone who disagrees must be a paid bot.

THIS LITERALLY HAPPENED TO ME LAST WEEK.

When the Minister of Male Pattern Delusion did this to me, everyone here understood exactly what was wrong with his reasoning. So why should that standard disappear when yall are the ones throwing accusations around?

It is asinine that yall can spend a year demanding evidence from Blake supporters and then suddenly decide that vibes are enough to accuse ordinary people of secretly working for Ryan. Can we pleaaaase NOT be complete fucking hypocrites?

One of the fundamental reasons I support Justin is that I believe Blake accused innocent people of things they did not do and then built a narrative around those accusations. I believe people were smeared because an allegation was repeated loudly and confidently enough that the accusation itself became proof of guilt in the public imagination. So I refuse to sit here and let anyone do the same exact thing to people we've trusted and have interacted with FOR OVER A YEAR.

This entire mess has made it painfully obvious to me that some of us have confused supporting Justin with simply opposing Blake and blaming her for everything at all costs. I think it's time we acknowledge that being "pro-Justin" and "anti-Blake" are no longer interchangeable and the difference matters.

Being pro-Justin requires evidence while being anti-Blake can survive on paranoia and suspicion alone. A pro-Justin position asks whether a claim is supported by the facts. An anti-Blake position starts with the assumption that Blake is guilty and works backwards from there. It does not need the full context because it already has the conclusion.

And more importantly, being pro-Justin should require us to uphold the values Justin has publicly associated himself with: the principles and perspective that drew many people to support him in the first place.

Being anti-Blake does not require any of that, which is why I think anti-Blake rhetoric can become toxic so quickly. It stops being about the strength of Justin's case and starts becoming about contempt for women. At that point, it's using Blake as an excuse for misogyny.

I think that distinction matters because there are people who use pro-Justin language while behaving in ways I do not believe Justin would ever condone. Trying to get women pushed out of communities, spreading unproven accusations about them, assigning motives to them, calling them brainwashed, treating every disagreement as proof of conspiracy, and framing women as dangerous or unstable because they refuse to fall in line is not "supporting Justin."

Many of us became interested in this case because we watched cherry-picked messages spread faster than context, assumptions get repeated as facts, and speculation harden into "truth" simply because enough people wanted to believe it.

So what exactly was the lesson? Personally, I've learned that context matters and that people should be extremely skeptical when they are only being shown the most emotionally convenient version of a story. Apparently for some, the lesson was just that Blake is bad, women are sus, and anyone who challenges the narrative must be discredited.

If you've been following along in this sub and the other one, you should be more skeptical of out-of-context screenshots and paranoia-based accusations by now. You should be more aware of how easily a person can be turned into a villain when people are only shown pieces that support that conclusion.

But anti-Blake rhetoric creates a weird permission structure where the same tactics we criticized suddenly become acceptable as long as they are being used against someone we've decided to outcast. Suddenly, screenshots do not need context, claims do not need evidence, motives can be assigned, and women can be called crazy, jealous, manipulative, or secretly aligned with Blake. And everyone is supposed to accept that framing because the person spreading it presents themselves as being on the "right" side. That is NOT being pro-Justin.

So here's the bottom line, the TLDR, if you will:

You are allowed to criticize IEWL and think their rules are silly. You are allowed to criticize MJ, Blake, and whoever else supports her. You can even disagree with ME!

But criticism and conspiracy are not the same thing. We will not be slinging around false accusations against one another all willy nilly.

If supporting Justin means anything, it should mean refusing to do to innocent people what we believe was done to him. So criticize the rule all you want, but the conspiracy theories end here.

I honestly want to sue for this because Expatriarch is actively encouraging harassment against me and inventing batshit conspiracies to defame me. I'm genuinely considering contacting an attorney, so lmk if you have any suggestions or advice.

Expatriarch the Minister of Misogyny and Male Pattern Delusion has now created entire threads about me, accusing me of "SEO manipulation" and claiming I was "deployed" by Justin Baldoni's team to influence algorithms. He also suggested that I was secretly coordinating with Sam Baldoni regarding Blake and Justin.

As some of you know, I've recently been amplifying a completely unrelated case involving James Scott. I moderate Lauren's community, and when she sent me her video about James, she mentioned that Sam Baldoni had posted about it on Instagram. Since this case is completely unrelated to Justin or Wayfarer, I figured there was no harm in reaching out to Sam on LinkedIn to let him know that I was amplifying his post and Lauren's video. Sam thanked me for sharing and then a few days later, he pointed me to another video about James' case.

As evidenced by the screenshot, this was the first and ONLY time I had ever reached out to Sam. Btw, sorry to Sam for having to publish this screenshot. I never wanted to turn a private, completely normal exchange into content, and I was not trying to use him for clout, access, or proximity to Justin. But I cannot allow a false accusation against me to become a false accusation about him or Justin. I only shared this screenshot to make it clear I'm not working with Justin, being paid by anyone, or participating in some private coordinated effort. I genuinely thought the full conversation would put that accusation to rest, but Expatriarch and his Anti-Intelligence Unit could turn a grocery receipt into evidence of a covert operation. Big Milk has declined to comment on its role in the conspiracy.

Anyway, after Expat's first post was published to Reddit, the comment section immediately devolved into conspiracy theories about me. And this is where I fucked up. You guys know, I ALWAYS advise you all to stay away from pro-Blake subs that only exist to target and harass us. I usually don't like giving them any engagement or attention, but this time I couldn't resist. My immediate instinct was to dispel the rumors because I can literally prove that the only contact I've ever had with anyone related to Justin was extremely recent and about an entirely different case.

So I did the dumb thing and posted my conversation with Sam to prove that it was our first-ever exchange. Expat saw the screenshot, carried it to a different platform, stripped away the context, and presented it as evidence that I had somehow been secretly coordinating with Sam all along. Any plausible deniability that this was an innocent misunderstanding evaporated the second he was presented with evidence and still chose to publish the lie.

The most basic understanding of linear time completely destroys Expat's theory anyway, because my posts about Blake and Justin predated my first-ever contact with Sam. Therefore, a later conversation about James Scott cannot possibly prove that he directed content I had already created.

Holy shit, I didn't even realize I had a time machine as powerful as Jed's! Maybe we should team up to prevent Expat's parents from procreating!

Even setting aside the minor problem that his theory requires me to communicate backwards through time, his attempt to explain why I contacted Sam is somehow even more nonsensical and bizarre. Expat argues that I decided "at random" to contact Sam about James, but never contacted him while posting about Blake and Justin. Bro, why the fuck would I have contacted Sam about Blake and Justin? If I had really spent over a year "secretly working on Justin's behalf", the fact that I never once contacted Sam for information, approval, or coordination about anything involving Blake is actually glaring fucking evidence that no coordination existed in the first place.

Whenever I post about Blake and Justin, I'm commenting on a public lawsuit using information that is available to everyone. I had no reason to contact Sam about it because I'm not his fucking employee and I don't need to be fed insider information to post content on behalf of Justin.

Plus, Lauren is the one who told me about James Scott and mentioned that Sam posted about it. I thought he might appreciate knowing that his advocacy had reached our community. That wasn't aT rAnDoM; it was the first time I had an actual, normal reason to contact him because there was absolutely no fucking reason for me to insert myself into Sam's private life or bother him about his son's litigation. I'm not some fucking parasocial loser looking for clout, I just wanted to connect about a shared interest. Again, the fact that I have PROOF that I had never contacted Sam up until a few weeks ago should have buried Expat's conspiracy theory six feet underground. Instead, he dug up the corpse and had the audacity to spend several posts trying to convince everyone it still had a pulse.

Btw it's fucking ironic that Expat, of all people, is accusing me of being paid by Justin when he doesn't even have the balls to prove that HE hasn't been in contact with anyone related to the case while being followed by Ryan Reynolds, Stephanie Jones, Nick Viall, and Selma Hayek. He even appeared on the podcast hosted by Ryan's Bitch Boy, Nick Viall, ffs. By his own standard of "evidence", that should be enough for me to announce that he's part of a coordinated operation too.

I guess Expat's evidentiary standard only seems to apply when he's trying to smear me. A single, fully disclosed conversation about a completely unrelated case (WHICH IS WORTH FOLLOWING BTW) apparently proves that I was "deployed" by Justin's team. But sure, his OWN connections are presumably meaningless and above scrutiny.

And that brings me to the next smoking gun Expat thinks he uncovered: old comments where I used relevant search terms to combat Nick Shapiro's efforts; something Expat and his conspiracy caucus have breathlessly rebranded as sEo mAniPuLaTiOn.

YUP, I fucking did that and I'll stand ten toes down on it, idgaf. I obviously wasn't even hiding it, and it seemed to trigger the Blakeys, which is objectively hilarious.

I've disclosed MULTIPLE times that I work in marketing and PR. Understanding search behavior, discoverability, keyword titles, and how content surfaces online is quite literally part of my professional skill set. Using that knowledge to help people find content I personally believe is worth seeing isn't some nefarious act of covert manipulation. I wasn't even astroturfing or hiding what I was doing. I discussed it publicly and transparently.

BUT GOD FORBID A GIRL HAVE HOBBIES AND PUT HER SKILLS TO GOOD TROLLING USE, RIGHT? Expat found me, a marketing girlie discussing and deploying basic content strategy, and decided he had uncovered fucking Watergate. Someone alert the Pulitzer committee! The would-be hero of his own political thriller has discovered... KEYWORDS, OMG!!!

My professional background and skill set are not proof that I'm part of some secret scheme to take down Blake Lively. It doesn't mean that Justin, Sam, Wayfarer, or the fucking Illuminati directed me to do ANYTHING. These were comments and posts published openly under my own account, in a public community I openly participate in, expressing opinions I have never hidden.

To be clear, I do not have any additional messages from Justin, Sam, or anyone on his team and I'm not being paid by ANYONE. There are no payment records, contracts, instructions from Justin, messages between me and Wayfarer, communication between me and Justin, or evidence that I had ever spoken to Sam before the James Scott exchange because NONE OF THESE THINGS EXIST.

Since Expat and his legion of turds can't comprehend why anyone would do something helpful without being paid: I happen to enjoy being helpful and I genuinely think James' case is interesting. I also have a massive fucking crush on Lauren but that's besides the point. For the sake of EXTRA transparency, I also created dedicated subreddits for James because Team Justin was obviously no longer the appropriate place to keep posting about a completely separate case. James deserves his own space and community.

Also, and this feels rather important, if Expat had done a second of research, he'd know that Wayfarer isn't even producing the movie about James. A completely different production company called Third Coast Film is developing it. So Expat's theory is apparently that Justin's team "deployed" me to volunteer my time building communities around a case that neither Justin nor Wayfarer have any monetary involvement in. Truly airtight logic.

The glaringly obvious problem here is that Expat and his Time Machine Truthers are demanding that I prove something that never fucking happened. I do not understand how I'm supposed to manufacture proof of a nonexistent relationship or nonexistent payments. I have shown exactly when I first contacted Sam and what was said. What proof could possibly satisfy their demands other than private, identifying information about myself? They invented the accusation and are basically demanding that I surrender my privacy as the price to pay for disproving THEIR delusions. Genuinely, what more could they possibly fucking want from me?

And because the unpaid Baldoni operative theory apparently wasn't deranged enough on its own, Expat and his supporters have escalated to deciding that I must literally be BocceGoHawks.

I cannot believe I have to utter these words, but I am obviously not BocceGoHawks. Apologies to her because she is an entirely separate person and frankly, far too lovely and dignified to be mistaken for my profanity-addled ass. Please stop dragging that poor woman into the consequences of my inability to complete a single paragraph without saying "fuck".

And yes, conflating two separate women of color into one interchangeable person IS racist. Expat's conspiracy caucus can apparently imagine an elaborate covert international operation, but cannot comprehend that two different women of color might both talk to Lauren and post about the same content. They do not get to plead ignorance, either. I have always been extremely vocal about being a woman of color and they're clearly very comfortable with digging into my post history.

There is something profoundly racialized about a white male public figure repeatedly mining a private woman of color for content. Expat has the larger platform, the established audience, and the ability to convert speculation about me into clicks, engagement, and possibly money. I get none of that power or protection. I get the dogpile, the doxxing risk, and the burden of disproving whatever fiction he publishes next. He gets content, I get consequences.

Unlike Expat, I am not a public figure. I do not have a dedicated audience waiting to counter whatever he decides to publish about me. I do not have a publicist, a media apparatus, or a built-in megaphone. There is no buffer between his content and my actual fucking life. He can publish a theory, collect the engagement, and move on. I am the one left dealing with weirdos trying to identify me so they can be the one to "prove" his conspiracy.

This racist collapse is also where Expat's white feminism becomes impossible to ignore. His supposed concern for misogyny mysteriously vanishes the moment a woman of color is being targeted for refusing to agree with him or perform the role he has assigned to her. When he publishes speculation, his audience treats it as fact. When I produce absolute, indisputable evidence, he dismembers it for parts and repackages the scraps as cherry-picked fodder for the same accusation: that I'm a plant, an operative, or secretly another woman entirely. My agency has to be erased because his conspiracy requires that a woman of color could not possibly have reached her own conclusions without being paid.

It's absolutely fucking insidious that Expat took information I had openly and repeatedly disclosed and decided it was appropriate to weaponize that transparency against me while his minions basically demand that I doxx myself. He completely twisted everything I had been honest about and churned it into a conspiracy fan fiction. If Expat wants to keep claiming I was "deployed", paid, or secretly coordinating with anyone, he can produce the fucking evidence. Otherwise, he can keep my name out of the steaming septic tank of intellectual sewage he desperately tries to monetize.

My Reddit lawyers, Santa Claus, the Pulitzer committee, and the International Tribunal for Crimes Against Basic Logic will be in touch.

I wanted to share one of Lauren Neidigh's tribute videos, where she brought together survivors' voices and stories to express their support for Justin Baldoni and explain why his situation resonated with them.

I've been listening to the song featured in this video again lately, which is what brought me back to this tribute. The cover was performed by Kylah Davis, the daughter of one of Lauren's viewers. Her voice and this song have really stayed with me, and I also wanted to share her channel because she has other beautiful covers worth listening to.

Original tribute video: Victims Throw Down Wave of Support for Justin Baldoni

Full performance: TRAUMA Cover (the 2020 anthem)

Kylah Davis's YouTube channel: Kylah Davis

Producer Blake Babson, whose credits include The Avengers and House of Cards, has announced that An Act of God, a feature film inspired by James Scott’s extraordinary true story, is officially in development.

In his announcement, Babson wrote:

>Very excited to announce the development of this project. James Scott deserves justice. More announcements to come.

Summary:

In this update on pre-trial motions, Lauren Neidigh from The Court of Random Opinion focuses on a dispute over whether Dr. Jennifer Freyd should be allowed to testify as an expert for Blake Lively.

The Wayfarer parties are seeking to exclude her testimony, arguing:

• She is not a clinician or psychiatrist and has not evaluated Lively directly
• She conducted no interviews, psychological testing, or review of medical records
• Her opinions are based entirely on litigation materials provided by counsel
• Her conclusions extend general trauma frameworks into case-specific interpretations of intent and behavior
• She speculates about emotional risk and trauma outcomes without direct clinical assessment
• Her testimony risks unfair prejudice by presenting contested interpretations through the authority of expert psychological language

Lauren emphasizes that Freyd’s research on DARVO and betrayal trauma is well-established academically, but the defense’s argument is that applying those frameworks to specific individuals in a legal case—without clinical evaluation—raises concerns about reliability and scope.

She also notes the defense’s point that Lively has limited her claims to “garden variety emotional distress,” which they argue makes broader trauma-based expert testimony less appropriate.

Lauren’s overall framing is that the central issue is not whether DARVO is valid, but whether it is being stretched beyond its intended use when turned into expert conclusions about specific parties in a legal dispute, rather than leaving those determinations to the jury based on the evidence presented.

Lauren, Omar, and Kassidy went live for a Friday Funsies stream, full of chaos and also somehow sound legal takes. Omar peer pressured Kassidy into drinking (jk), Kassidy will now be pressing charges (jk), and Lauren fell asleep mid-stream (jk). I recommend actually watching this one because there were a ton of side quests and random funny topics that you don't want to miss out on from The Friday Fun Bunch™️.

I took notes for an hour and a half and plugged them into ChatGPT for your convenience (and mine too tbh). So to get into the meat and potatoes of it all...

⚖️ 1. Trial Prep + Jury Selection (Voir Dire)

• They explain “voir dire” (jury selection):
  • Attorneys question potential jurors to find bias.
  • Questions can include opinions on:
    • Blake Lively
    • celebrity culture
    • #MeToo movement
  • There’s no reliable science to picking jurors—lawyers often guess wrong.

⚖️ 2. Motions in Limine (Pre-Trial Rules)

• A major focus: motions in limine (pre-trial motions to control what evidence is allowed).
• Purpose:
  • Set boundaries before trial starts
  • Avoid chaos, objections, and jury removal mid-trial

Key issues being argued:

• Whether sexual harassment evidence can be mentioned
• Whether character evidence about Blake Lively is allowed
• Whether irrelevant or prejudicial material (e.g., PR, media narratives) can be excluded

Big tension:

• Lively wants to limit damaging narratives
• Defense wants to show “organic criticism” vs. smear campaign

⚖️ 3. Case Narrowed Dramatically

• Originally: 13 causes of action
• After summary judgment: cut down to ~3 claims

Remaining focus:

• Retaliation (under FEHA)
• Breach of contract (the “17-point list”)
• Possibly aiding & abetting

This narrowing:

• Limits what evidence is relevant
• Creates confusion about what can still be discussed at trial

⚖️ 4. Major Legal Debate: Retaliation Without Harassment?

This is one of the most important insights from the stream:

Defense argument:

• Retaliation claims rely on sexual harassment allegations
• But those harassment claims are mostly gone ➡️ So: “What are they retaliating against?”

Key tension:

• You may NOT be able to:
  • Argue retaliation
  • WITHOUT discussing the underlying harassment

This creates a trial strategy dilemma:

• Do attorneys:
  • Block harassment evidence entirely?
  • OR let it in and attack credibility?

⚖️ 5. Motions to Exclude Evidence (Examples)

Lively is trying to exclude:

• Testimony from YouTubers/reporters
• “Character attacks” on her reputation
• Evidence tied to:
  • PR campaigns
  • Subpoena controversies (Van Zandt issue)
• Pop culture references (e.g., Deadpool/Nicepool parody angle)

Reason:

• She argues they are irrelevant + prejudicial

Defense view:

• Some of this could show:
  • motive
  • context
  • alternative explanations (not retaliation)

⚖️ 6. “Document Dump” Strategy

• Lively allegedly submitted:
  • ~800–1000 exhibits
  • Some bizarre (e.g., Taylor Swift cookie article)

 

Explanation:

• This is a legal tactic:
  • Flood the other side with material
  • Keep strategy unclear

Key insight:

• Number of exhibits ≠ strength of case
• Some lawyers:
  • Use thousands of exhibits
  • Others use none + impeachment only

⚖️ 7. Spoliation (Deleted Evidence Issue)

• Allegation: messages deleted via Signal (auto-delete app)

What Lively wanted:

• Strong sanctions (e.g., jury assumes evidence existed)

Reality:

• Very hard to prove:
  • Must show specific evidence was destroyed
• Likely outcome:
  • Might come out during testimony instead

⚖️ 8. Defense Strategy (Wayfarer / Baldoni)

• They argue:
  • No valid retaliation claim under FEHA
  • Lively did not engage in protected activity properly
  • Their actions were:
    • Defensive PR, not retaliation

Important claim:

• Smear campaigns can be legal
• Only illegal if:
  • Done because of protected activity (like harassment complaints)

⚖️ 9. Witness Strategy + Surprises

• Both sides listed many witnesses, including:
  • Ryan Reynolds
  • cast members
  • PR professionals
  • experts

Key takeaway:

• If you call a witness:
  • The other side can cross-examine them

Oddities:

• Some witnesses seem irrelevant (e.g., influencers, outsiders)
• Some may be excluded via motions in limine

⚖️ 10. Trial Length Debate

• Estimated:
  • ~15 days (initially)
• Now likely:
  • 6–7 days max due to reduced claims

⚖️ 11. “Failure to Mitigate Damages”

Explained simply:

• You can’t let damage get worse and then blame the other side

Example:

• If someone breaches contract:
  • You must try to reduce your losses
  • Not let things spiral and demand full compensation

⚖️ 12. Kassidy’s Key Argument (Major Insight)

Kassidy strongly argues:

• The timeline doesn’t support California jurisdiction (FEHA)

Her point:

• Key events involved:
  • New York (Stephanie Jones)
  • Texas (Jed Wallace)
• So:
  • Why is California law being used?

This challenges the entire legal basis of the retaliation claim

⚖️ 13. Big Strategic Question Going Into Trial

The core unresolved issue:

Will sexual harassment be discussed or not?

Because:

• It’s central to retaliation
• But mostly dismissed

This creates a high-risk strategy choice:

• Block it → weaken retaliation claim
• Allow it → risk credibility attacks

🧠 Overall Takeaways

• The case has been heavily narrowed
• Trial will focus on:
  • retaliation logic
  • credibility
  • PR vs. smear campaign framing
• A lot of pre-trial fighting is about:
  • what the jury is even allowed to hear

Biggest theme:
This trial is shaping up to be less about facts
and more about what narrative is allowed into the courtroom

⚠️ What Triggered This Video

• Both Blake Lively and the Wayfarer Studios parties had a midnight deadline for pre-trial filings.
• But before that, Wayfarer filed a new letter to the judge raising urgent concerns.

📉 Core Issue: “Drowning in Materials”

Wayfarer argues that Blake’s legal team is:

• Still using massive trial lists despite the case shrinking:
  • 40+ witnesses
  • 800+ exhibits (down only slightly from ~1,000)
• This is after 10 of 13 claims were dismissed

👉 Their argument:

• The case got cut in half legally
• But Blake’s trial prep is almost unchanged

🚨 Last-Minute Evidence Dump

Wayfarer highlights a major problem:

• Blake identified 68 NEW exhibits
• Timeline:
  • Listed just after midnight
  • Files provided around 3:40 AM
  • Link didn’t work → usable access not until 10 AM

👉 Meanwhile:

• Defense had major filings due that same day (jury instructions, motions, etc.)

Their complaint:

>

⏳ Dispute Over Timing (and Strategy)

• Blake’s team initially:
  • Refused to give an extension
• Then offered a deal:
  • Wayfarer gets 2 days to review
  • BUT only if Blake gets extra time to identify exhibits later

👉 Wayfarer rejected this as:

• One-sided and unfair

🤨 Questionable / Irrelevant Exhibits

Wayfarer points out that some materials seem… bizarre:

• A Taylor Swift cookie recipe article
• Photos of Blake with Taylor Swift
• A speech about Ryan Reynolds being a great family man
• Long “summary exhibits” (e.g., 54 pages)
• Videos/podcasts with no timestamps specified

👉 Their argument:

• These materials:
  • Appear irrelevant
  • Add unnecessary volume
  • Make it harder to prepare a defense

⚖️ Key Legal Argument

Wayfarer acknowledges:

• Trial lists are often over-inclusive

BUT says this goes too far:

>

📋 What Wayfarer Is Asking the Judge

They want the court to:

1. Give them more time

• +1 week to:
  • Review the 68 new exhibits
  • File objections
  • Prepare motions to exclude evidence

2. Force Blake to narrow her case

• Reduce witness list
• Separate:
  • Primary vs rebuttal witnesses
• Cut down exhibit list to something trial-appropriate
• Specify:
  • Exact documents being used
  • Exact timestamps for videos/podcasts

⏱️ Trial Scope

• Estimated length: 15 days (~3 weeks)

🎯 Big Picture Takeaways

• Even after major dismissals:
  • Blake’s team is keeping the case massive
• Wayfarer’s framing:
  • This is disorganized at best
  • Strategically overwhelming at worst

👉 Core tension:

• Blake’s approach: Broad, expansive, last-minute additions
• Wayfarer’s approach: Narrow, structured, rule-based

🎥 Extra Note

• Lauren is:
  • Planning to attend trial in NYC
  • Fundraising to cover costs: https://www.givesendgo.com/LaurenCoversBaldoniTrial

🔑 Core Case Update

• Individual defendants dismissed: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, and Steve Sarowitz are no longer personally named in the lawsuit.
• However, 3 claims are still moving forward against:
  • Wayfarer Studios
  • TAG PR LLC

📅 Immediate Deadlines

• Joint pre-trial filing deadline is TOMORROW
• TAG’s renewed summary judgment motion: will determine whether claims against TAG proceed

⚖️ Blake Lively’s “Witness Fight” (and why it failed)

• Blake Lively asked the judge to force Wayfarer to disclose immediately:
  • Which dismissed defendants would testify in person
  • Which would testify via deposition
• Key issue:
  • The court cannot force out-of-state witnesses to appear in person (limited subpoena power)
• Her request was:
  • Denied as moot (because Wayfarer answered anyway)

📨 Wayfarer’s Response (and their argument)

Wayfarer essentially said:

• Blake complained about missing info…
  • But her own witness list had the same problem
• She listed ~45 witnesses without saying who would testify live
• Meanwhile:
  • Wayfarer had already marked out-of-range witnesses with an asterisk
  • And reserved the right to call them live if they agreed voluntarily

👉 Their framing:
“Rules for thee, not for me.”

🎭 Who WILL vs WON’T Testify Live

✅ Will appear in person:

• Justin Baldoni
• Jamey Heath
• Melissa Nathan (PR)

❌ Will NOT appear in person (deposition only):

• Steve Sarowitz
• Jen Abel

👉 Important:

• They can’t be forced to appear
• But some are choosing to show up voluntarily

📉 Impact of Summary Judgment (Big Deal)

• 10 out of 13 claims were dismissed
• Wayfarer argues:
  • This dramatically changed the trial scope
  • They needed time to reassess witnesses + evidence
• Blake’s position:
  • Claims the ruling doesn’t change anything

👉 Commentary takeaway:

• That stance is portrayed as unrealistic or strategic delay

📚 Trial Scope Still Massive

• Blake has:
  • 41+ witnesses
  • ~1,000 exhibits
  • Now adding “dozens more” (videos, etc.)
• Issue:
  • She hasn’t disclosed details of new exhibits yet

👉 Defense argument:

• She’s expanding the case while refusing to narrow it

⚖️ Judge’s Position

• Denied Blake’s request as unnecessary/moot
• Implicit takeaway:
  • The court is not going to micromanage pre-trial logistics

🎥 Final Note (From the Creator)

• Trial:
  • Will NOT be televised
  • No phones allowed in court
• Creator (Lauren) wants to attend in person and is:
  • Fundraising to cover travel/reporting costs: https://www.givesendgo.com/LaurenCoversBaldoniTrial

🧠 Big Picture Takeaways

• The case is now:
  • Much smaller legally (only 3 claims left)
  • But still huge procedurally (witnesses, exhibits, disputes)
• Ongoing theme highlighted in the video:
  • Blake’s legal strategy = expand scope + pressure the court + procedural complaints
• Defense strategy:
  • Point out inconsistencies + rely on court rules + narrow scope

🧵 Full Video Summary: PR Fallout, Power Dynamics, and Statement Backlash

1. From Relief to Frustration

• After the ruling favoring Justin Baldoni, there was initial relief.
• That relief has shifted into frustration and anger as people revisit Blake Lively’s behavior, statements, and legal tactics.

2. Emotional Toll & Targeting of Critics

• Lauren expresses wanting to stop giving Blake energy after being directly impacted.
• The lawsuit is framed as not just legal—but as something that targeted and harmed multiple women, including online critics.

3. Public Still Believing the Narrative

• Some audiences continue to support Blake at face value, elevating her as a victim.
• The video criticizes this as uncritical belief rooted in her framing, not the full record.

4. Misrepresentation of the Legal Ruling

• A major frustration is the claim that the ruling harms independent contractors’ protections.
• Lauren argues:
  • The judge did analyze the merits of Blake’s claims.
  • This was not a technicality-based dismissal.
  • Women still have legal avenues for justice.

5. Disputed Victim Narrative

• Blake is accused of:
  • Positioning herself as a powerless employee
  • Aligning with workplace abuse victims
• Lauren counters:
  • Blake was in a position of power
  • She allegedly used that power to intimidate, threaten, or humiliate others

6. Free Speech vs. Legal Retaliation

• The video strongly rejects Blake’s framing of a “smear campaign.”
• Core argument:
  • Public figures can be criticized without retaliation
  • Blake allegedly attempted to:
    • Obtain private data (location, banking, etc.)
    • Accuse critics of being paid actors
• This is framed as weaponizing the legal system to punish dissent

7. Complexity as a Strategic Advantage

• Much of the case exists outside mainstream coverage
• It’s described as:
  • Hard to follow
  • Strange and unbelievable
• This confusion allows Blake’s narrative to persist without deeper scrutiny

📣 Blake’s Statement & Why It Sparked Backlash

8. Institutional Power & Media Influence

• The involvement of William Morris Endeavor (WME) is cited as evidence of:
  • Media influence
  • Narrative shaping
• This reinforces the idea that Blake operates with significant institutional backing

9. Contradictions in Her Messaging

Lauren highlights multiple contradictions:

• “I didn’t want a lawsuit” → She filed it and pursued broad subpoenas
• “Private and professional retaliation” → Her actions are described as highly public and media-driven

10. Reframing as a Universal Women’s Issue

• Blake urges women to “see themselves” in her story
• Lauren criticizes this as:
  • Out of touch and elitist
  • An attempt to generalize a celebrity dispute into systemic abuse

11. “Digital Violence” as Abuse

• Blake reframes the case around “digital violence”
• Lauren argues:
  • This dilutes real experiences of abuse
  • It positions Blake as a symbolic victim without comparable harm

12. Vague Claims of “Digital Warfare”

• Blake connects her experience to broader societal and political manipulation
• Criticism:
  • Claims are broad, vague, and unsupported
  • No clear evidence tying her situation to these larger issues

13. Self-Framing as Advocacy

• Blake calls this the “work she’s most proud of”
• Lauren questions:
  • What actual advocacy or action has occurred?
• Seen as self-promotional rather than substantive

14. Borrowing Legitimacy from Real Victims

• Blake aligns herself with broader movements and past victims
• Criticism:
  • This is viewed as appropriating serious issues
  • Without demonstrating comparable lived experience or impact

⚖️ 15. Why Settlement Now Feels Impossible

• Lauren’s key conclusion:
  • After Blake’s public statement, settlement no longer makes sense
• Reasoning:
  • Blake escalated the situation by:
    • Doubling down publicly
    • Expanding her claims into broad social and political territory
  • Her messaging:
    • Positions her as a symbolic figure
    • Frames the case as larger than a private dispute
• As a result:
  • Backtracking or quietly settling would contradict her public stance
  • The conflict is now too public, too ideological, and too escalated

Lauren going live again tonight!!! With Omar this time!

WE MUST CELEBRATE!!!

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