Link: https://www.boredpanda.com/ryan-reynolds-blake-lively-texts-studio-bosses-backlash/

Read More: https://www.nickiswift.com/2283014/ryan-reynolds-role-blake-lively-protecting-reputation-reveal/

https://archive.ph/bLQZC

Not a new depo, but re-read it again as part of the latest unsealing. Of all the many many unhinged and insane behavior from Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, this one is pretty high up there.

Per Sony exec Ange Giannetti, the January 2024 meeting was never suppose to be the “all hands return to production meeting.” This was a meeting requested by Ange to go over the script and scheduling. That’s it. Blake only says she wants to “clear the air in the beginning” and then surprises everyone by having Ryan Reynolds show up. The “clear the air in the beginning” turns into a 6 hour session of Ryan screaming and berating Justin non-stop without breaks per both Ange and Heath’s testimonies.

Imagine asking your husband to crash a routine work meeting, springing him on your colleagues and bosses, having him hijack the entire meeting away from the planned agenda to go off on his diatribe, and wasting SIX hours of everyone’s time on your ambush meeting. How utterly psychotic and ridiculous. Terrorists indeed.

The meeting was so off the rails in tone, topic and duration that both Ange Giannetti and Todd Black said they had never experienced anything like it. Ange and Todd who have been in the movie business for a long time and have undoubtedly dealt with a long list of difficult talent. For those that don’t understand the significance power imbalance between Blake (Ryan) and Justin, even a top Sony executive Ange Giannetti recognized how abusive and extended the meeting had become, but could do nothing but stay and take SIX HOURS of Ryan’s diatribe instead of shutting it down.

Ryan Reynolds is an unhinged loser who loves getting high off his abusive power trips and Blake Lively is a performative feminist who hijacks other people’s work because she incapable of doing it herself. Blake Lively was raging about the patriarchy to Justin Baldoni and Taylor Swift to get sympathy for them. Meanwhile, Blake is patriarchy personified. Blake, just own that you need your husband to take your work meetings instead of trying to pretend you are something you aren’t and cosplay as a wannabe girl boss. Girl is such a pathetic fraud.

And no, Ryan never believed Justin SHed Blake. We now know Ryan was editing the film and had access to the dailies so he knew Blake’s account of the dance and birth scenes were lies. He knew there was not one single footage that showed Justin improvising kisses or biting Blake’s lips as Blake alleges, but plenty of Blake doing it to Justin. Ryan was posting sexy photos of Justin and making jokes about Justin having sex with Blake for the film’s promo. And made Nicepool into a well-endowed beautiful physical specimen. A selection of Ryan’s unhinged text messages here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/ncMU9ZPSoK

A full list of Blake Lively’s falsified SH claims and lies, debunked with evidence:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/QYFgAGidHe

​

Full transcript of a short video by Bocce:

"Also, where did Ryan Reynolds get this number? This $500,000?

Where did he get that number?

I know people jokingly say that he got it from Stephanie Jones, or maybe not jokingly say, but that doesn't make sense.

First and foremost he (Ryan) said this in September (2024), but even if we went past September - okay, actually, if we even just said September, at that point, he (Justin Baldoni) would have paid

- $25,000 for Jonesworks, his regular PR, right?

 - $30,000 for three months with Jed Wallace, that would be $90,000 total.

 - and you got $15,000 for three months with Melissa Nathan's TAG, that's $45,000.

And by September, they wouldn't have paid that yet, or maybe they would have—no, they wouldn't have, they paid it monthly.

So at that point they would have paid only 30,000 to Jed and 15,000 to Melissa or or TAG PR.

But even if they were projecting it out to the full three months that they signed up for, that's like $160,000.

Okay, so if we added when Ryan Reynolds was claiming that they were saying negative stuff about Blake around July, that would only add another 25,000.

So where is this $500,000 figure coming from?"

Seems to me like it might have been a defamatory-adjacent number.

Kinda like everything scandalous that has been alleged against Baldoni's cooperation with Nathan, Wallace and TAG ever since December 2024. And with Freedman as well, since all claims of defamation by Freedman in Lively v. Wayfarer were dismissed.

The more evidence comes out that there wasn’t a smear campaign against Lively, that there wasn’t any kind of smear website, there were no bots, no astroturfing, no amplyfying anything, no mass coordination with CCs, no false statements made, how the Wayfarer clients asked again and again for TAG and Wallace not to do anything beyond what they were told to do (and we know Wayfarer fires publicists who plant negativne stories when being told not to do that) - the more push back there is in the form of spreading the illogical, not supported by reason, or by law, "guilty by association" accusations.

We know for a fact that Ryan has been seeding falsities about Baldoni since September 2024, starting with random, borderline-defamatory number of $500,000, which is 11 times more than what Baldoni had paid his Crisis PR team at the time (September 2024), and 3 times more than what Baldoni paid his crisis PR team in total. The falsities continued with the first New York Times article, where Baldoni, Heath and Sarowitz were falsely accused of SH in December 2024. And maliciously accused, in my opinion.

The smear article additionally assailed and slandered the reputations of innocent journalist Kjersti Flaa, innocent journalist Sara Nathan and innocent publicist Jennifer Abel. All the allegations against them have been proven false and the belief they were villains in the first place was the result, in my opinion, of a smear campaign by Lively (Reynolds), published in the New York Times.

I picked up and read Emanuel Millers The Kindest Cut after seeing it recommended on Flaa’s channel. I couldn’t stop reading both Volume 1 and Volume 2 once I started. “Manny” is a celebrity hairstylist that talks about his journey to developing his career in the movie business and his experiences along the way.

I felt that he tried to be gracious and not overly critical of people but at the same time honest. His story telling painted a vivid picture of how tv/movie productions function and the drama sometimes between different departments.

He worked with and developed friendships with several actors and crew members so I wanted to share a few relevant items in this sub when it got to the chapter where he worked with Blake Lively.

In addition to the screenshots, there’s a part towards the end where Blake invites (pressures)everyone to her house for an “Easter Dinner”. Manny doesn’t want to go but knows it’ll be “noted” so he reluctantly goes.

They were told to be there by 1:30 for a meal that will be served at 2pm. She doesn’t greet Manny or talk to him (or other crew members) while he’s there. She’s working on some sort of dessert and making everyone wait. Finally he leaves at 8pm without food ever being served 😂

Overall on set Blake treated non actors poorly (no surprise) and I believe the word “narcissist” was used to describe her

Anyways I highly recommend the book to anyone curious about the movie business or how certain actors/directors are in real life. One of my favorite interactions in this book is how he gets to know Quentin Tarantino, Tom Hanks,and Russell Crow (9 won’t spoil which ones are great and turn into friendships and which one is just an asshole). Hope you enjoy!

Another day, another threat from Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. Maximum Extortion, Minimum Accountability.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1477.3.pdf

MS. HUDSON: Okay. Let's go off the record.

MS. SHAPIRO: We're not going off the record.

MS. HUDSON: I'm taking a break. Yes, we are.

MS. SHAPIRO: We're not going off the record.

MS. HUDSON: Yes, we are. Yes, we are. It's not up to you. This is my deposition. We're going to go off the record.

MR. BACH: How much time is left?

MS. SHAPIRO: There's six minutes left. Oh, sorry, seven minutes.

MS. HUDSON: Okay. I have seven minutes.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Nine minutes left.

MS. HUDSON: Nine. There you go. We're gonna take a 10-minute break. We'll come back for the last nine.

MR. BACH: Let's make a record before you go. Let's make a record.

(Cross talk.)

MS. HUDSON: Not on the record. Not on my time.

MR. BACH: Can we go on the record?

MS. HUDSON: Absolutely not. Okay. You can go on the record and make any statement you want—

MR. BACH: I'm going to go on the record.

MS. HUDSON: —but you're not taking my nine minutes. I'm not—you are not taking my nine minutes to make a record.

MS. SHAPIRO: So you can ask more questions about a dead former client of one of the lawyers in this case?

MS. HUDSON: If you want to make a—

MS. SHAPIRO: And how is that—how is that proper?

MS. HUDSON: I understand that you are new to this case, and you don't understand everything.

MR. BACH: I want to go on the record. I don't care whether—

(Cross talk.)

MS. SHAPIRO: I'm new to this case, but I'm not new to the practice of law. I've been practicing law for over 30 years. I know the rules, ma'am.

MS. HUDSON: We're going off the record. I have nine minutes left, and I'm going to use them to ask some questions. If you want to make a record, you can add time and make whatever record you want.

MR. BACH: Okay.

MS. HUDSON: Okay? Will you agree that you will—this is not counting against my nine minutes?

MR. BACH: That's fine. But I want it on the record. I want a record of what's happened.

MS. HUDSON: You—you want a record of what's happened?

MR. BACH: Yes.

MS. HUDSON: You can make a record if—if you will—

MR. BACH: I would like to, if you will let me.

MS. HUDSON: If—I will let you if you will agree that it is not going to impact my nine minutes.

MR. BACH: I've already said fine to that. Do I need to say it again?

MS. HUDSON: Okay. You can make whatever record you want. I'm going to take a break.

MR. BACH: Okay. Can we go on the record for this?

MS. HUDSON: You don't need the video for this. You can just do it for the—

MR. BACH: I'll do it on the video. We're—I don't need the video.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're still on the record.

MR. BACH: Are we on the record?

Yeah, I just want to say, we had a break less than an hour ago. We made clear to counsel that we didn't want another break, that this same witness is being deposed tomorrow. That this process is exhausting. That he's expected to testify for another seven hours plus breaks tomorrow.

She came back from a break and part of her questioning had nothing whatsoever to do with the claims and defenses in this case. She was clearly at the point where the questioning becomes optional and rhetorical, and she engaged in a series of questions aimed to drive a wedge between this deponent and his lawyer, and to tarnish the reputation of the lawyer. That is how she has used her time—

MS. HUDSON: This has nothing—

MR. BACH: Excuse me. I'm making a record.

MS. HUDSON: Then we are going to excuse the witness from the room because you are speaking and coaching the witness right now.

MR. BACH: I am not coaching the witness at all.

MS. HUDSON: This is totally inappropriate. This is totally inappropriate. You are coaching the witness. You are making a very long speaking objection. There is no purpose. There's no judge in the room. Everything that you're saying is—you can make an argument about it. We're not going to do this in front of the witness.

MR. BACH: Technically, a speaking objection is when there's a question pending and you object to the question.

MS. HUDSON: No.

MR. BACH: I'm not objecting to—

(Cross talk.)

MS. HUDSON: Speaking on the record is not permitted like this. You're objecting to the break. Objection noted. We're taking a break.

MR. BACH: All right. This isn't—this is silly.

MS. HUDSON: Okay.

MR. BACH: This is silly.

MS. HUDSON: I do not want you to coach the witness anymore and—

MS. SHAPIRO: We're not coaching the witness.

MS. HUDSON: —make other statements on the record about the witness. If you insist on doing that, the witness should leave the room. Okay?

MR. BACH: I am going to defer to you in every respect. Whatever I need to do to let you make my statement on the record, I'm going to do. Okay?

MS. HUDSON: Then you can excuse the witness from the room if you insist on making this statement.

MR. BACH: Okay. Jamey, go outside. Go outside, as I continue.

After we made clear our concerns about breaks, the witness is—

MS. HUDSON: Yeah. I would like to also note that you are not the—you are not the representative lawyer.

MR. BACH: If you cut me off again, I'm going to call Judge Liman on the phone now.

MS. HUDSON: You want to tell him that you, who are not defending the deposition, are wanting to make a ten-minute speaking objection?

MR. BACH: Can you let me speak and then you can make whatever speech you want about me and you can say whatever you want about me. But you are going to let me—

(Cross talk.)

MS. HUDSON: Yeah, Mr. Bach, you are not defending this deposition. You are a participant here who has decided to make a speech on the record.

MR. BACH: We're not kids on a playground. You just said if Mr. Heath left the room, I could make my statement. Now you're not letting me make my statement. Can I make my statement?

MS. HUDSON: You can make your statement over my objection. Okay? That you—

MR. BACH: Just let me know when I can make my—

MS. HUDSON: —you should—

MR. BACH: —statement. I'm just going to sit here and not say—

MS. HUDSON: —you should not be making any statement on the record.

MR. BACH: —anything until you tell me I can make my statement.

MS. HUDSON: If you—you are disrupting the deposition in order to make a statement as the non-defending lawyer in this deposition.

MR. BACH: Are you done?

MS. HUDSON: And if you—I don't agree. I excused the witness. If you want to continue, I'm just going to let you do this so we can finish this deposition. And then we're going to take a break, and we're going to take our last nine minutes. So if you want to make this statement, for whatever reason, go ahead.

MR. BACH: Are you done?

MS. HUDSON: I am done.

MR. BACH: Okay. Can I talk?

MS. HUDSON: You can talk.

MR. BACH: Okay.

As I've been saying, after we made clear that we're concerned about the breaks, we're concerned about the witness being tired, the next line of questioning had to do—had nothing to do with the case, but simply had to do with the client and his lawyer and trying to drive a wedge. And now, the questioning lawyer wants to take yet another break. It's clear from the content of her questioning that she's no longer focused on the merits of the case, and that she's conducted her substantive questioning.

I don't see another need for a break. I think the deposition is practically over. The client is tired and has to go tomorrow. I think this is abusive. I think it's unnecessary, and I object.

MS. HUDSON: All right. Ten minutes. Off the record. Thank you.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1477/9/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

This space is designed to discuss all things relevant to the cases (even minor!) and those involved. Please feel free to share all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

The cases are complex and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those seeking clarification are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to promote healthy and productive discussions and avoid low-effort or off-topic posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the health of the community at large. 💜

Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeAgJbvyr_1

CC🎥: Elsrich

Blake Lively decided to get on the internet to post in her IG stories about resources on SA and consent attempting to hitch her wagon to the Cornell SA case…..

The only issue is that I think Blake Lively lying about SH to steal a movie, and using her money, power and connections to do so is in direct contradiction to what real SH and SA victims go through.

Blake Lively along with her husband Ryan Reynolds, her former BFF Taylor Swift and powerful A-List friends joined together to bully Justin Baldoni and when that didn’t work, she proceeded to make up stories about SH.

Blake Lively then weaponized the legal system by filing a secret sham VANZAN lawsuit in NY State Court to obtain private text messages of Jen Abel without her consent.

Blake Lively’s lies about being SH’ed and her weaponization of the legal system set back the progress of real victims.

I think by now we can all agree that Ryan Reynolds will not have the same power or influence in Hollywood that he once did. And yet, every so often, we still see the same questions come up: “Why is Ryan Reynolds suddenly hated?” “Where did all this hate come from?” “What did Ryan actually do?” “ He was just defending his wife.”

And honestly, I think one of the biggest things people seem to have collectively moved past is the whole Justin Baldoni/WME situation. How did we get to a point where an A-list actor had the power to influence whether another actor keeps his talent agency. WHY is the idea of an A-list Hollywood star having that kind of influence over another actor’s career not being questioned more?

Maybe we can collectively ask Ryan Reynolds to get WME to drop Diddy and Jared leto ?

And for the few people still wondering why is Ryan Reynolds cancelled i would suggest they watch this video of one of my favorite YouTubers she does amazing work and analysis and she has done a few on this case but the ones about Ryan are the ones that truly stood out to me.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-XBaQ0n2Obo&si=kTVR6z-84zyv_cdC

A video analysis of Ryan’s email to colleen hoover.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nStrj2DyMNI&si=QozQP5Y-t8cex0UT

Possible spoilers? Absolutely hilarious y’all!

I came across this in the wild and thought I would share.. while I know there was a lot of backlash for IEWU, I wish there had been way more.

I haven’t read this book personally, but I’m so glad to hear it’s awful. This is the kind of karma Colleen deserves imo- hoping to see more of this energy.

Has anyone here read this book? Not sure if it has sensitive subject matter.

Opportunist Blake Lively lecturing the public about accepting the word “NO“ on her IG is peak delusion.

The same Blake Lively who multiple Sony executives called a fucking terrorist because of her extortion tactics after she was initially told “NO” to hijacking someone else’s hard work and project. The same Blake Lively that leaked her CRD full of fake sexual harassment claims and proven lies because she refused to accept the backlash to her IEWU promotion was due to her own actions of hawking booze and haircare.

Examples of Blake being a terrible human being because she refused to accept someone else’s “NO” and respect their boundaries:

• When Blake (Ryan) were told NO Justin would not released the unhinged statement Ryan Reynolds wrote for Justin to take accountability for Maximum Efforts’ epic level stupid marketing, Blake threatened “the gloves would come off“ and proceeded to falsely accuse Justin of sexual harassment by leaking Blake’s CRD of proven SH fabrications to the NYT
• When Blake’s (Ryan’s) idiotic rooftop re-write about crypto bros and male prostitutes was told NO by Justin, Blake brought in her dragon Taylor Swift as a threat to do what Blake wants
• When Blake was told NO by Justin to getting access to the dailies, Blake told her agent her “HR report was ready to go” and used her sham 17 point list of fake SH claims as leverage to get what she wanted
• When Blake was told NO to her getting her own cut and it violating DGA rules, Blake threatened not to promote the film and pull Taylor Swift’s song from the trailer
• When Blake was told NO her cut didn’t score higher than Justin’s cut, Blake said it didn’t matter and they were going with her cut or she & Colleen Hoover would not promote the film
• When Blake was told NO to a producer credit, she threatened Justin and Jamey with “any goodwill would be gone” and coerced them to endorse her PGA under duress
• When Sony told Blake NO to showing an unfinished cut of IEWU at Book Bonanza, Blake stole the film and showed it anyway
• When Justin told Blake (Ryan) NO to taking blame for Maximum Effort’s marketing, Ryan then demanded Sony take the blame and asked Ari Emmanuel to go full Ari on Sony CEO Tom Rothman
• When Taylor Swift told Blake NO to releasing a statement of support, Blake threatened to release 10 years of their personal text messages
• When Blake was told NO to her ridiculous wardrobe, she accused Justin of sexual harassment for crying, said Taylor Swift says the public doesn’t know what they want until you give it to them, and proceeded to blow past the wardrobe budget
• And let’s not forget Blake coerced an interviewer, who doesn’t drink, to drink and promote Ryan‘s Aviation Gin alcohol in professional setting

Blake is the epitome of celebrities who are terrible human beings, but love to sanctimoniously moralize and preach about things they disregard in their own practice.

A full list of Blake Lively countless proven lies and numerous falsified debunked sexual harassment claims:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/PyOssw0H7i