r/teamjustinbaldoni

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace moves for a leave to file Rebuttal Evidence in support of his Reply u/same-difference-ave

📍Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files a response to Blake Lively’s Opposition to his Deposition request u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Wallace Seeks Permission to File New Rebuttal Evidence (0:00–0:52)

• Blake Lively’s Texas dispute with Jed Wallace continues, with Wallace’s attorney filing a motion seeking permission to submit rebuttal evidence.
• The request responds to arguments Lively made while opposing Wallace’s motion to compel her deposition.
• Wallace wants the court to consider additional portions of Lively’s deposition transcript from Lively v. Wayfarer, along with email exchanges between Babcock and Lively’s attorneys.
• According to LGA, the evidence is intended to directly rebut claims Lively made in her opposition.

⏱️ Lively Says Wallace Already Had His Chance to Depose Her (0:52–1:38)

• Lively’s opposition argued that Wallace already had an opportunity to question her during her deposition in the New York litigation.
• Her side also raised arguments concerning Wallace’s previous efforts or alleged lack of efforts to obtain discovery in the Texas case.
• Wallace disputes that characterization and argues the newly submitted transcript demonstrates that his questioning of Lively was strictly limited in both time and scope.
• Babcock’s position is that Jed's previous opportunity was not sufficient to investigate the issue now relevant to Lively’s California Civil Code §47.1 fee request: malice.

🕖 The Transcript Shows Babcock Received About One Hour (1:38–2:48)

• LGA says the newly revealed transcript provides more detail about the strict seven-hour limit imposed on Lively’s deposition.
• Babcock began questioning Lively at approximately 6:42 p.m.
• At approximately 7:44 p.m., Lively’s attorney said the seven-hour limit had been reached and ended the deposition.
• When Babcock attempted to ask two additional questions, Lively’s counsel refused and stated that the deposition was being adjourned.
• LGA highlights this because Wallace is now arguing that his previous opportunity to question Lively amounted to only about one hour.

📜 Babcock Preserved His Request for More Deposition Time (2:48–4:18)

• Before the deposition concluded, Babcock made a statement on the record objecting to the limited time available to Wallace.
• He noted that an amended complaint containing significant changes had been provided shortly before the deposition and said Wallace had only been permitted approximately one hour of questioning.
• Importantly, Babcock expressly stated that Wallace could later seek a court order reconvening Lively’s deposition if necessary.
• Lively’s attorney responded that the court had already established a single seven-hour deposition and that Wallace’s counsel had previously indicated one hour would be sufficient.
• Her side maintained that Wallace could have asked whatever relevant questions he wanted during that allocated hour.
• Babcock responded that if Wallace remained in the litigation, they might seek additional time later, which is exactly what Jed is now doing.

🎯 Wallace Says the First Deposition Wasn't About Malice (4:18–5:31)

• Babcock argues that Wallace’s previous questioning was focused primarily on personal jurisdiction and issues relevant to the earlier litigation, rather than developing evidence concerning Lively’s state of mind or alleged malice.
• Wallace now argues that malice has become important because Lively is seeking attorney’s fees under §47.1.
• Babcock points to his earlier statement on the deposition record as evidence that Wallace preserved the possibility of seeking additional questioning.
• He also submitted email exchanges from June and July to rebut Lively’s arguments concerning previous communications about discovery.
• LGA believes the requested evidence is narrowly tailored to the specific factual assertions made in Lively’s opposition.

🔎 New Deposition Testimony: Lively Points to Stephanie Jones (5:31–6:51)

• The filing also reveals previously unseen portions of Lively’s deposition concerning Jed Wallace’s work.
• Lively had previously described Wallace’s work as “clandestine,” prompting Babcock to ask who had given her that characterization.
• According to the newly revealed testimony, Lively identified Stephanie Jones as someone who told her about the nature of Wallace’s work and how he operated.
• Lively also referenced attorneys and later indicated she may have seen messages involving Jennifer Abel or Melissa Nathan.
• Why was Stephanie Jones communicating with Blake Lively, and when did those communications occur?

📄 More of Lively’s Deposition Remains Redacted (6:51–7:42)

• LGA cautions that the filing does not suddenly reveal Lively’s entire deposition.
• Significant portions remain redacted, meaning additional information remains unavailable**,** and its importance cannot yet be determined.
• She also highlights a lighter exchange in which Babcock questioned Lively about Wallace and Street Relations being named in her California CRD complaint.
• After referring sarcastically to Lively’s attorney Esra Hudson as her “outstanding lawyer,” Hudson objected.

🔥 LGA Thinks the Texas Fight Is Becoming Riskier for Lively (7:42–8:30)

• LGA thinks that Lively may continue pursuing the Texas fee dispute until Judge Liman rules on her fee request in New York.
• LGA speculates that if Lively receives a substantial award that produces favorable headlines, Lively could potentially decide that continuing to pursue fees against Wallace is no longer worthwhile.
• However, LGA believes the Texas litigation is currently moving in an increasingly risky direction for Lively.
• If the Texas court grants Wallace’s request for limited discovery, Lively could be required to sit for another deposition, this time focused on issues relevant to malice and §47.1.

⚖️🔓 Little Girl Attorney - Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel Update: Judge Liman Orders Documents Unsealed as Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss Jones’ Lingering John Doe Defamation Claim

🥱😴😑🫩NotActuallyGolden - Stephanie Jones’ “Dead” Defamation Claim: Wayfarer Asks Judge Liman to Finally Dismiss the John Doe Claim After Jones Failed to Drop It

📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

⚖️ Wayfarer’s Motion a “Duh Moment” (0:01–0:22)

• NAG describes the latest motion in Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel as fairly straightforward.
• The defendants are essentially telling the court that Stephanie Jones has a “dead claim” still sitting on the docket.
• Jones had previously indicated that the claim would be dismissed, but because that apparently never happened, the defendants are now asking Judge Liman to formally dismiss it.

🌐 The John Doe Defamation Claim & the Stephanie Jones Websites (0:22–1:12)

• One of Stephanie Jones’ original claims was a defamation claim against John Does 1–10, unidentified defendants she alleged were connected to StephanieJonesLeaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Jones suspected that Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan had some involvement but initially needed discovery to determine who could actually be held responsible.
• After obtaining discovery, Jones eventually sought to amend her complaint and replace the unidentified John Doe defendant with Melissa Nathan.
• According to NAG, Jones was essentially attempting to allege that Nathan was legally responsible for the websites rather than continuing against unidentified defendants.

🚫 Judge Liman Previously Refused to Let Jones Add Melissa Nathan (1:12–1:40)

• The problem, NAG explains, was timing: Jones sought to amend the complaint after the deadline for amending pleadings had passed.
• Judge Liman found that Jones had possessed the relevant information for months and could have sought the amendment earlier.
• The court therefore denied her request to substitute Melissa Nathan for the John Doe defendant.
• As a result, Jones was left with a claim against unidentified people whom she could no longer replace with the person she wanted to name.

💀 NAG Says the Claim Is Essentially “Dead” (1:40–2:05)

• NAG says this leaves the defamation claim in an unusual but simple position: it technically exists on the docket but has nowhere meaningful to go.
• Jones cannot realistically proceed to trial against unidentified defendants who have never actually been named or appeared in the case.
• Wayfarer contacted Stephanie Jones’ attorneys and asked them to voluntarily drop the claim.
• According to the defendants’ motion, Jones’ attorneys indicated they would do so, but the dismissal never happened.

📑 Wayfarer Gives Judge Liman Multiple Ways to Dismiss It (2:05–2:38)

• The motion provides Judge Liman with several different procedural mechanisms he could use to dismiss the remaining claim.
• Although motions to dismiss are more commonly seen earlier in litigation, NAG notes that they can arise later depending on the circumstances.
• NAG's takeaway from the filing is that the defendants are essentially saying the precise procedural route does not matter—the John Doe claim simply needs to go.

🤔 Why Is Stephanie Jones Still Holding Onto It? (2:38–3:13)

• NAG would not be surprised if Stephanie Jones simply withdraws the claim in response to the motion rather than fighting over it.
• Even if Jones believes she has identified someone responsible for the websites, Judge Liman has already ruled that she cannot amend the complaint to name that person at this stage.
• NAG briefly speculates that there could be settlement discussions happening behind the scenes and that Jones’ side might view the unresolved claim as some form of leverage, but NAG emphasizes that this is only a possibility.

Hi guys. Lauren here. I saw a post on Twitter about how a certain group of people are obsessing again over what I and others are doing even though it’s not related to Justin or Blake at all. I made 2-3 videos about James Scott’s case which is being characterized as some sort of consistent coverage. I actually think it’s hilarious they keep working themselves up over this 😂 do they not realize other people have full lives? Sam Baldoni caring about James Scott’s case doesn’t mean it was a Baldoni project. This was Adam’s life work and Blake Babson is working on making it a film. They were the ones I interviewed and I’m really glad I did. Yes, I talked to my friend Sam about it. Who cares? The lawsuit ended months ago and we are allowed to talk to each other especially since we didn’t become friendly until after it was over. This is a lot of really obsessive coping. Accept that people you don’t like can do what they want.

The AI slop photos aren’t because of a coordinated campaign. They’re probably because Omar is stupid at making thumbnails and now uses AI 😂 Is Omar a PR professional now? He’d be fucking terrible at it. They’re taking a totally unrelated issue and trying to make it about Justin Baldoni, who hasn’t spoken to me at all directly or indirectly. I also saw screenshots of people saying I had lunch with Jamey Heath. These are delusions. I do not know nor have I ever spoken to Jamey or anyone in his family. When you see people make claims about content creators, they aren’t true. We don’t know these people. They can pretend all they want. It’s just a lonely person trying to feel like a part of something, which maybe we can all relate to on some level, but they do it by lying which is weird.

People are allowed to network, work together, make friends, etc. it happens all the time. People you don’t like can be friends with other people you don’t like. If patron saint Lively feels like I was part of a smear campaign she can sue me to embarrass herself when it comes out that she’s wrong, but people trying desperately to create controversy are misguided. Justin is moving on. Even Blake is moving on. That must be hard for them. They really need to get a life. Imagine getting yourself all worked up about a conspiracy because Omar is artistically stupid 😂😂 or because James was just granted parole so more locals and others are paying attention to the topic in general. Bots will always latch themselves onto topics that are getting any kind of increased traction. That’s obviously true since these guys are latching on to this 😂

We’re scraping the barrel here folks. Go see your friends and family. Step away from this when it’s too much. You don’t want to become like the people who make up weird stories like this in public forums. I’ll probably do an update interview with Adam on this topic later but don’t worry I’ll be sure to consult the bot overlords first. Have a nice day :)

⚖️🔓 Little Girl Attorney - Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel Update: Judge Liman Orders Documents Unsealed as Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss Jones’ Lingering John Doe Defamation Claim

🥱😴😑🫩NotActuallyGolden - Stephanie Jones’ “Dead” Defamation Claim: Wayfarer Asks Judge Liman to Finally Dismiss the John Doe Claim After Jones Failed to Drop It

📍 Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files Motion to Dismiss Jones’ 8th Cause of Action - Defamation against Doe Defendants 1-10 u/same-difference-ave

📍Jones v. Abel: Liman orders parties to refile public versions of exhibits by August 24th in resolution of pending sealing motions u/same-difference-ave

🔓 Judge Liman Orders More Jones v. Abel Documents Unsealed (0:00–1:18)

• There are two new developments on the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel docket, beginning with the dispute over documents currently under seal.
• The court previously asked the parties to explain which materials, if any, still needed to remain sealed.
• Stephanie Jones told the court she did not object to the documents being unsealed.
• The Wayfarer parties took a narrower position, arguing that certain materials contain personally identifying information and should remain sealed consistent with Judge Liman’s previous rulings in Lively v. Wayfarer.
• Judge Liman has now ruled that materials he previously determined should remain sealed will continue to be protected, while everything else should be unsealed.
• LGA says it is difficult to know how significant this will be until the documents actually become public, although there could still be material that has not previously been seen.

⚖️ Wayfarer Moves to Dismiss the Remaining John Doe Defamation Claim (1:18–2:17)

• LGA says the more interesting development is a new motion to dismiss filed by the Wayfarer parties.
• The motion targets the unidentified John Doe defendants and the remaining defamation claim against them.
• When Stephanie Jones originally filed her lawsuit approximately 19 months ago, she alleged unidentified individuals were responsible for creating and disseminating websites including Stephanie Jones Leaks and StephanieJonesLies.com.
• Because Jones said she did not yet know who was responsible, she initially brought the defamation claim against unnamed John Doe defendants with the expectation that their identities could later be discovered.

🚫 Jones Previously Tried to Substitute Melissa Nathan—but the Court Said No (2:09–2:39)

• Stephanie Jones subsequently attempted to identify Melissa Nathan as one of the John Doe defendants.
• Judge Liman refused to permit the amendment.
• The court found Jones had unduly delayed, failed to demonstrate good cause and had not been sufficiently diligent in determining the defendants’ identities.
• However, that ruling did not technically eliminate the original defamation claim against the unidentified John Does, leaving the claim sitting on the docket.

🧩 Wayfarer Says the John Doe Claim Has Nowhere Left to Go (2:39–3:21)

• LGA explains that because nobody formally moved to dismiss the remaining John Doe claim, it technically continued to exist despite the court preventing Jones from substituting Melissa Nathan.
• The Wayfarer parties argue that Jones has not identified another defendant, pursued the necessary discovery, or otherwise developed the claim.
• That creates a procedural loose end: even if there is effectively nobody for Jones to pursue at trial, the claim remains part of the case until it is formally dismissed.
• The Wayfarer parties therefore asked Jones to voluntarily dismiss it.

🤔 Jones Allegedly Agreed to Dismiss It—but Didn't (3:21–4:10)

• According to the Wayfarer parties’ filing, they initially asked for the claim to be dismissed in April.
• Jones apparently did not agree until late June, when the Wayfarer parties say she finally indicated she would dismiss it.
• However, according to their motion, Jones never actually followed through with the dismissal.
• LGA says she currently cannot see a clear reason Judge Liman would deny Wayfarer's request: Jones allegedly has not prosecuted the claim, pursued discovery identifying the John Does, and had already agreed to dismiss it.
• If Stephanie Jones files an opposition, LGA says that may finally explain why the claim has remained on the docket despite her apparent agreement to let it go.

Daily Mail Article's title and link : Insider: Taylor Swift's baby plans and brutal 'slap in the face' for Blake - dated August 17, 2026

💭🤔Usually not into this kind of tea, but I found the PR for this one quite interesting! "Insider closed to Swift" is cited which very likely comes from Taylor's PR. The message that reached me is that although Blake has been a friend of Taylor's for years, the loss of this friendship is far from being the end of the world for Taylor and she has still has her rock which has been Selena for long, long years. The fact that the article mentions at length that Blake and Selena were not getting along during Blake and Taylor's friendship years also hints at the fact that Taylor has more than one way of being a friend and the best of her was and is in her friendship with Selena.

Excerpts below :

'Taylor and Selena are very close. They're like sisters,' one insider close to Swift, 36, told the Daily Mail. 'For almost 20 years they've been there for each other on a personal and professional level. Selena's always been someone Taylor can trust 100 percent. They have a bond that's never been broken.'

So deep is their bond, it is perhaps understandable that they now want to experience motherhood together – and have made it clear they will be godparents to their respective future children.

'Taylor and Selena have agreed they want to have their babies as close time wise to each other as possible so they can bring them up together,' our insider said. 'They've essentially made a pact that they will be godmother to each other's children.'

(...)

But even if Lively and Swift's friendship was still solid, it is unlikely Lively and her children would have spent time with Swift, Gomez and their respective children, given that Lively and Gomez have seemingly never been seen together with the Cruel Summer singer.

By the time 38-year-old Lively entered Swift's orbit in 2015, Gomez had already been the singer's friend for years. But Swift's birthday bashes, Fourth of July parties, NFL game appearances and New Years Eve celebrations, to name but a few, have only ever been attended by Lively or Gomez – never both. In fact, there do not seem to be any photographs of the trio.

Most recently, Gomez attended Swift's New York City wedding to Travis Kelce – Lively did not.

(...)

Over the past decade, Gomez, who is a godmother to her cousin Priscilla's two children, has seemingly only ever made one reference to Lively, and there is no evidence of Lively ever mentioning Gomez.

In a 2016 interview with Elle magazine, Gomez was asked who of her friends she would 'trade her with' if she had the chance. She named Lively.

'I wish she was my friend, but she's not my friend,' she said. 'Blake Lively. I've never met her, but I just love her hair. I think she's got beautiful, effortless hair. I think she's super beachy.'

It would seem that those feelings, however, have waned, with the Daily Mail exposing their apparent bad blood in April 2024. At the time, insiders claimed that the two were not friends, didn't 'mix' and were 'constantly avoiding run-ins with each other.'

But for all the tension between Gomez and Lively – and the breakdown of Swift's friendship with the It Ends With Us star – a second insider insisted that Swift choosing to make Gomez the godmother of her children 'wouldn't be done to shade Blake.'

'Taylor is very confident in her friendship with Selena and doesn't worry about having any falling out,' the source said.

✏️EDIT TO ADD THIS EXCERPT I OVERLOOKED AND WHICH MAY WELL BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT : it is below acknowledged as from Taylor Swift's viewpoint, that it is Blake who dragged Taylor into the lawsuits, not Justin :

Last month, the Daily Mail was told that Swift felt she had 'no choice' but to 'remove herself' from the position after her decade-long friendship with Lively was severed, seemingly beyond repair, after the actress dragged Swift into her legal battle with her It Ends with us co-star Justin Baldoni.

My favorite compilation of Blake and Company lying.

I tried posting this numerous times even in another sub (I usually refuse to post in). I’ll add the links later.

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 just watched Kjersti’s recent video, and the story of the person who described what allegedly happened after getting on Ryan Reynolds’ bad side honestly disturbed me.
And this isn’t even just about Ryan, Blake, Baldoni, or celebrity drama to me. If you zoom out, the bigger issue is the power imbalance. If extremely wealthy and influential people are able to use their money, connections, and status to intimidate, harass, silence, or make life difficult for people with far less power, that deserves serious attention.
There have now been several stories and allegations surrounding these people, and regardless of where anyone stands on the whole Baldoni/Lively situation, I think the broader issue is worth discussing.
Ryan Reynolds is incredibly wealthy and powerful. And obviously, this goes far beyond one celebrity — I’m sure he wouldn’t be the only billionaire or powerful person accused of treating less powerful people this way.
Shouldn’t mainstream media be looking more closely at situations like this? There has to be some way for ordinary people to seek accountability when they’re up against someone with that much money and influence.
Sorry if my English isn’t perfect 🙈 This is actually my first post here, but the video really bothered me and I was curious what other people think about it:

https://youtu.be/tkg4fJ9OdO0?is=ZlO7VO35s-dGfvnl

* first pic for attention — not related to the specific allegations discussed here. Other video screenshots.

👀Watchlist:

⚖️♟️🚨📰 Little Girl Attorney - New It Ends With Us Spin-Off Lawsuit: James Vituscka Sues the Daily Mail, Alleging He Was Pressured Over His Declaration & Became a “Pawn” in the Lively-Wayfarer Legal War

📍James Vituscka is suing the Daily Mail…Claims he signed his Declaration in Lively v Wayfarer case due to pressure and coercion u/same-difference-ave

📰 Explains Why Not Covering James Vituscka’s Lawsuit (0:00–0:18)

• NAG says she is fully aware of the new lawsuit filed by James Vituscka, which connects back to the Lively, Leslie Sloane, and Wayfarer litigation.
• She has read the lawsuit but has decided not to do a full breakdown because other creators are already covering it and, in her view, will cover it well.

🤨 NAG Questions James Vituscka’s Reliability (0:18–0:41)

• NAG says she personally views Vituscka as an “unreliable narrator.”
• She points to the multiple declarations/affidavits he filed during the litigation that, according to her, contained differing accounts.
• Also, Vituscka has directly messaged NAG multiple times throughout the case.
• Based on those private interactions, NAG says she has seen him contradict himself, which further affects how she evaluates his account.

⚖️ His Daily Mail Case Could Still Have Merit (0:41–0:58)

• NAG makes an important distinction: her concerns about Vituscka’s credibility do not necessarily mean he has no legitimate case against the Daily Mail.
• She acknowledges that he “may very well have a case” against the publication.
• Her hesitation is instead about personally diving into the question of whether someone she believes gave contradictory sworn declarations should now be characterized as a whistleblower.

🚫 Why NAG Is Choosing Not to Cover It (0:58–1:12)

• Despite viewers repeatedly asking for her thoughts on the Vituscka lawsuit, NAG has decided this is one story she simply does not want to get into.

⚖️ Jones v. Abel Is Back: Trial Timeline & Summary Judgment Ahead (0:00–1:25)

• NAG gives a refresher on Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel, which has been relatively quiet while the parties finish expert discovery.
• Based on recent court filings, the parties are working toward summary judgment motions in October 2026, which NAG says could reveal substantially more evidence.
• The case is currently set for trial in February 2027, although NAG stresses that a trial date does not guarantee the case will actually reach trial.
• She explains that some claims have previously been dismissed or changed, so her goal is to explain what she believes remains live in the litigation.

🧩 How Jones v. Abel Connects to Lively v. Wayfarer (1:28–2:20)

• Stephanie Jones originally filed the lawsuit in New York state court before it was removed to the Southern District of New York.
• Although it was never consolidated with Lively v. Wayfarer, the two cases proceeded alongside each other and had overlapping discovery periods.
• Attorneys from the Jones case therefore participated in depositions occurring during the Lively litigation.
• With Lively v. Wayfarer now over, Jones v. Abel is moving independently toward its own dispositive-motion stage.

💔 Stephanie Jones’ Core Claim Against Jennifer Abel: The Employment Agreement (2:20–2:59)

• NAG characterizes Stephanie Jones’ case against Jennifer Abel as essentially a “you cheated on me” case.
• According to Jones’ allegations, Abel's employment agreement restricted her from competing with Jones Works, establishing a competing firm, soliciting clients or personnel, and improperly sharing confidential information.
• Jones alleges Abel violated those obligations while preparing to leave Jones Works.
• NAG describes the breach of employment agreement claim as the umbrella under which much of Jones’ case operates.

🏚️ Tortious Interference: Melissa Nathan, Wayfarer & Justin Baldoni (2:59–3:25)

• Jones also accuses Melissa Nathan, Wayfarer, and Justin Baldoni of helping or encouraging Jennifer Abel to breach her employment obligations.
• NAG describes them as the alleged “homewreckers” in her relationship analogy.
• Legally, Jones frames this as tortious interference with her contractual relationship with Abel.

📑 Jones Works v. Wayfarer: The Client Agreement (3:25–4:25)

• Stephanie Jones separately alleges that Wayfarer breached its client agreement with Jones Works.
• According to Jones, the agreement required Wayfarer to continue making certain payments, provide written notice before terminating the relationship, and comply with restrictions concerning moving to a competitor.
• Jones alleges Wayfarer failed to satisfy those obligations when it ended its relationship with Jones Works.
• She further alleges Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan helped induce Wayfarer to breach that agreement.

👩🏻‍💼 Faithless Servant & Fiduciary-Duty Claims Against Jennifer Abel (4:25–4:46)

• Jones also brings faithless servant and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Abel.
• NAG explains these broadly as allegations that while Abel was employed by Jones Works and owed duties to her employer, Abel was instead acting for herself or others.
• Whether those theories ultimately survive through summary judgment remains to be seen.

🌐 “Stephanie Jones Leaks,” “Stephanie Jones Lies” & Defamation (4:46–5:33)

• Another part of Jones’ case concerns websites including “Stephanie Jones Leaks,” “Stephanie Jones Lies,” and “Who’s Afraid of Stephanie Jones.”
• Jones alleges Jennifer Abel and unidentified John Does were responsible for the websites.
• NAG notes that Jones previously attempted to substitute Melissa Nathan for one of those unidentified defendants, but the judge found that attempt came too late.
• NAG says NAG has not yet seen evidence establishing Abel's responsibility for the websites and expects this issue could become clearer at summary judgment.

📱 Jennifer Abel’s Counterclaims: Her Phone & Personal Number (5:33–7:00)

• Jennifer Abel has brought three counterclaims against Stephanie Jones arising from what happened to her phone, personal data, and personal phone number.
• NAG emphasizes that the court previously declined to dismiss these claims based simply on the argument that information contained on an employer-provided phone automatically belonged to the employer.
• One theory involves an alleged violation of the California Penal Code concerning unauthorized access to business and personal information.
• Abel also brings a conversion claim, alleging her personal phone number was transferred onto the Jones Works device and then retained after her departure.
• Her promissory fraud claim concerns alleged representations that her phone and/or number would be returned or transferred back to her, which she says did not happen.

💥 Wayfarer’s Counterclaim & the Vanzan Evidence (7:02–7:55)

• Wayfarer has its own counterclaim against Stephanie Jones for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
• According to NAG, the breach-of-contract claim concerning confidentiality did not survive, but this related theory remains live.
• Wayfarer alleges that its relationship with Jones Works inherently required Jones to act in good faith toward her client.
• The allegation centers on Jones allegedly providing Leslie Sloane and Blake Lively with information obtained from Jennifer Abel’s phone, including material connected to Vanzan.
• Wayfarer argues that Jones' alleged disclosure of that information violated the implied covenant governing their contractual relationship.

🗣️ Wayfarer’s Defamation Counterclaim Against Stephanie Jones (7:55–8:31)

• Wayfarer also has a defamation counterclaim against Stephanie Jones and Jones Works.
• Wayfarer alleges Jones told Leslie Sloane and Blake Lively that she knew there was a smear campaign and possessed evidence proving it.
• Wayfarer contends those representations were defamatory because Jones allegedly had access to information showing that although certain tactics may have been discussed, they were not actually carried out.
• This puts what Jones allegedly knew—and what the underlying communications actually showed at the center of another surviving dispute.

🔥 October Could Bring a Major Evidence Dump (8:31–9:01)

• NAG believes the counterclaims particularly the claim involving Vanzan and Jennifer Abel’s phone data will attract significant attention as the litigation moves forward.
• She expects multiple parties could seek summary judgment on multiple claims.
• For observers, that could be particularly significant because the motions and oppositions may put considerably more evidence into the public court record.
• With October summary judgment briefing and a February 2027 trial date currently on the calendar, NAG says Jones v. Abel is officially becoming a case worth watching closely again.

⚖️😉🍵 NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Is Heating Up: Summary Judgment in October Could Reveal “All the Tea,” Sealed Vanzan Evidence May Come Out & Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting

🔓⚖️ Little Girl Attorney - Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming: Judge Liman Questions Continued Sealing in Jones v. Abel

🔓 Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming in Jones v. Abel [0:00–0:30]

• LGA says anyone who has been following the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation should now pay close attention to the separate Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel case.
• Another potentially significant round of document unsealing appears to be approaching.
• The case is also before Judge Liman, who recently issued an order addressing the parties’ requests to keep various documents on the docket sealed.
• LGA is particularly interested because the Jones v. Abel litigation overlaps substantially with issues and evidence that surfaced in Lively v. Wayfarer.

⚖️ Judge Liman Questions Whether Continued Sealing Is Still Justified [0:30–1:06]

• Judge Liman’s preliminary review found that many of the documents the parties want to keep sealed have already been unsealed in the Lively v. Wayfarer Studios litigation.
• The judge also noted that a significant amount of time has passed since the original sealing decisions.
• Because circumstances have changed, the business and privacy interests that originally justified keeping certain materials confidential may no longer carry the same weight.
• LGA highlights the practical problem: if particular documents or information are already publicly available through the related Lively v. Wayfarer case, there may be little justification for continuing to conceal the same material in Jones v. Abel.

📅 Parties Have Until August 17 to Defend the Sealing [1:06–1:23]

• Judge Liman has directed the parties to submit a letter by August 17 explaining why any particular documents should remain sealed.
• According to LGA, if the parties fail to provide sufficient justification, the court has indicated that the materials will be unsealed.
• This effectively puts the burden back on the parties to identify what genuinely still requires confidentiality rather than simply allowing the existing sealing orders to continue indefinitely.

👀 Could Previously Unseen Jones v. Abel Documents Become Public? [1:23–1:36]

• LGA acknowledges that some of the documents involved may simply be duplicate material the public has already seen through Lively v. Wayfarer.
• However, she believes there could also be documents in Jones v. Abel that have never previously been made public.
• Alongside with familiar evidence, the public could potentially receive new material specific to the Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel dispute.
• LGA says she is now digging back into Jones v. Abel and will be following what happens as the August 17 deadline approaches.

📍Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ptL8RMoS4&t=3572s

⚖️😉🍵 NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Is Heating Up: Summary Judgment in October Could Reveal “All the Tea,” Sealed Vanzan Evidence May Come Out & Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting

🔓⚖️ Little Girl Attorney - Another “Great Unsealing” Is Coming: Judge Liman Questions Continued Sealing in Jones v. Abel

⚖️ Why the Lively–Baldoni Litigation Was So Unusual [0:00–1:17]

• NAG says she is compiling a list of the many procedural aspects that made the Lively–Baldoni litigation unusual, and one major example was the absence of motions to dismiss from the Wayfarer parties.
• She explains that when defendants believe they have viable legal grounds for dismissal, filing a motion to dismiss is generally a standard early step and cheaper than a motion for summary judgment after discovery.
• The Wayfarer parties clearly had legal arguments available because similar arguments later appeared in their summary judgment motions.
• Even obtaining partial dismissal can be valuable because it narrows the claims before expensive discovery proceeds.
• A motion to dismiss can also delay discovery while the court considers whether some or all claims should survive.
• NAG therefore finds it significant that the Wayfarer parties chose not to pursue that route and instead proceeded directly into discovery.
• In her view, that decision supports what the Wayfarer parties have consistently claimed: they wanted the underlying facts and evidence to come out publicly rather than trying to dispose of the case before discovery.

👀 Jones v. Abel Is About to Become Important Again [1:17–2:59]

• NAG shifts to Jones v. Abel, saying she has had charts and explanations prepared for months but was waiting until the case became active again before releasing them.
• That moment has now arrived because significant deadlines and developments are approaching.
• Jones v. Abel was brought by Stephanie Jones, a longtime celebrity publicist, against her former employee Jennifer Abel, her former client Wayfarer, and Melissa Nathan, who later worked with Wayfarer after the departure from Jonesworks.
• NAG finds the case particularly interesting because it involves less commonly discussed employment and business issues, including when employees can leave and take clients, what employers can do with company phones, and what happens to information stored on those devices.
• Jennifer Abel’s phone is expected to be an especially significant issue.
• NAG also reminds viewers that Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan and the Wayfarer parties have brought counterclaims against Stephanie Jones.
• As NAG has repeatedly described it, Stephanie Jones has effectively become the “common enemy” because multiple parties have claims or grievances against her.

📅 October Summary Judgment Could Bring “All the Tea” [3:07–3:59]

• NAG says the parties have agreed that summary judgment motions will be due in October, making the next couple of months potentially very important.
• She explains that summary judgment is particularly valuable for people following a case publicly because it often brings large amounts of evidence onto the public docket.
• A party seeking summary judgment argues that there are no genuine disputes of material fact requiring a jury to resolve.
• Consequently, the moving party presents the evidence supporting its position, while the opposing side typically responds with evidence showing why factual disputes remain.
• If Jones v. Abel reaches the October summary judgment deadline without settling, NAG expects the filings to reveal considerably more of the evidence behind the competing allegations.

📂 Jones v. Abel Can Draw From a Huge Pool of Discovery [3:59–5:14]

• Discovery in Jones v. Abel occurred concurrently with discovery in the Lively–Baldoni litigation, meaning the parties were developing evidence in both matters at roughly the same time.
• NAG says this is important because evidence obtained through civil discovery can potentially be used across related civil litigation.
• The Jones v. Abel parties therefore have access not only to documents, depositions, affidavits and other discovery produced specifically in their case, but potentially relevant material developed through the Lively–Baldoni litigation as well.
• That creates what NAG describes as a very large universe of information from which the parties can construct their summary judgment arguments.
• She plans to release another video reviewing the claims that remain active in Jones v. Abel so viewers are prepared for the upcoming filings.

🔓 Judge Signals That Sealed Jones v. Abel Material May Be Coming Out [5:14–6:36]

• Another development is: the judge recently indicated that numerous materials remain under seal and effectively asked the parties to explain why they should stay sealed.
• She interprets this as a sign that previously unavailable evidence could begin entering the public record.
• NAG believes some evidence sealed in Jones v. Abel never became public during the Lively–Baldoni litigation.
• She expects some of that material could concern the Stephanie Jones leaks and Stephanie Jones lies websites.
• She also believes some material could relate to Vanzan, an issue she says was comparatively underplayed in the Lively–Baldoni litigation.
• NAG says Vanzan is much more central to Jones v. Abel because there is an actual legal claim alleging that Stephanie Jones improperly provided information to Blake Lively.
• Vanzan is coming at us.

💰 Still Waiting for Judge Liman’s Blake Lively Fee Decision [6:52–7:09]

• NAG briefly returns to the main litigation, noting that everyone is still waiting for Judge Liman’s ruling on Blake Lively’s attorney’s fee request.
• The unresolved question is how much of Lively’s request will ultimately be awarded—whether somewhere around $150,000, the full $8 million request, or something in between.

🤔 Jed Wallace Keeps Fighting—and NAG Finds That Interesting [7:09–8:25]

• NAG then turns to the latest developments in Jed Wallace’s Texas litigation against Blake Lively.
• Wallace sued over allegations contained in Lively’s CRD complaint that was provided to the New York Times, arguing that his reputation was damaged by being associated with allegations involving sexual harassment and retaliation.
• NAG notes that when Lively subsequently filed her federal lawsuit, Wallace was not named as a defendant.
• What particularly interests NAG is that Wallace continues pursuing the litigation despite his historically low public profile.
• She recalls how difficult it initially was for people even to find a photograph of him online and characterizes his professional work as intentionally operating away from public attention.
• Yet Wallace appealed the Texas personal-jurisdiction ruling and continues participating in the dispute surrounding Lively’s §47.1 fee request.
• NAG says he could have abandoned the matter and returned to relative anonymity, but instead he has continued fighting, which leaves her curious about his motivation.

👩‍⚖️ Magistrate Judge Gets the §47.1 and Deposition Fight [8:25–9:32]

• NAG says the remaining trial-court disputes appear to have been referred to a magistrate judge.
• Those issues include Blake Lively’s §47.1 motion and Wallace’s request to depose her in connection with that motion.
• She explains that federal district judges frequently refer issues to magistrate judges, who can handle the dispute and make recommendations that the district judge may subsequently adopt.
• What NAG finds most intriguing: Jed Wallace keeps engaging.
• Wallace did not have to appeal after the court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Lively, yet he chose to continue.
• Although Lively’s §47.1 fee request now requires him to defend himself, NAG remains fascinated that Wallace continues actively pursuing a dispute when his apparent preference at the beginning was to return to Texas and disappear from public attention.

Blake Lively is back in the spotlight as the "Chaos Queen" amid explosive legal drama with Justin Baldoni. A new complaint reveals wild details about manipulation and being gaslit. Fans are obsessed as the celebrity feud continues to unfold. Who's really to blame in this Hollywood showdown? The court documents are messy, and the internet is eating up every twist. Stay tuned for more chaos! Post-settlement, she’s chasing $8M in legal fees while Baldoni’s team fights back, keeping the saga alive.

📍James Vituscka is suing the Daily Mail…Claims he signed his Declaration in Lively v Wayfarer case due to pressure and coercion u/same-difference-ave

📰 Another It Ends With Us Lawsuit Emerges [0:00–1:11]

• LGA says a new spin-off lawsuit connected to the It Ends With Us litigation has emerged, this time involving Daily Mail reporter James Vituscka.
• Vituscka became part of the broader dispute because of his reporting efforts as the controversy unfolded in August 2024.
• He was referenced in the complaint filed by the Wayfarer parties against Leslie Sloane, Blake Lively and others, and later appeared through competing declarations used in connection with Sloane’s motions.
• LGA revisits a text Vituscka sent Melissa Nathan shortly after the New York Times article was published. In it, he questioned why Sloane had previously described the cast as hating Justin Baldoni without mentioning Lively’s later allegations.
• That communication ultimately became part of the Wayfarer parties’ complaint.

📑 Leslie Sloane’s Subpoenas & Vituscka’s First Declaration [1:11–2:14]

• In April 2025, Leslie Sloane’s counsel subpoenaed Vituscka for documents and sought his deposition.
• According to LGA, the Daily Mail then became involved, and Vituscka provided a declaration that Sloane subsequently relied upon in support of her sanctions arguments.
• In that declaration, Vituscka said his use of the word “assault” had been a mistake, that his text had been presented without proper context, and that he regretted the messages becoming public.
• Vituscka later submitted another declaration in August, which LGA previously characterized as appearing self-serving.
• LGA recalls predicting at the time that the situation looked like it could eventually lead to litigation between Vituscka and the Daily Mail. She says that prediction has now materialized.

⚠️ Vituscka Alleges the Daily Mail Pressured Him to Sign a Declaration [2:14–3:31]

• According to Vituscka’s allegations, the arrival of the subpoenas created significant internal pressure at the Daily Mail.
• Vituscka alleges the company attempted to control the situation and appeased Leslie Sloane rather than simply allowing him to sit for a deposition.
• He claims he was pressured into signing a declaration drafted for him that did not completely reflect his own position.
• One of his concerns allegedly involved the declaration repeatedly stating that he “regretted” what had occurred.
• He also objected to language stating that he had not authorized Bryan Freedman to use his text messages in the complaint, because he allegedly did not believe that accurately represented what happened.
• Vituscka claims Daily Mail management and in-house counsel placed substantial pressure on him to sign, leaving him feeling that refusing would amount to letting his employer down.
• He further alleges he was discouraged from obtaining independent legal representation even after he became concerned that his interests and the Daily Mail’s interests were diverging.

⚖️ Wayfarer Subpoena, Independent Counsel & Whistleblower Warning [3:31–4:24]

• The situation allegedly escalated when another subpoena arrived, this time from the Wayfarer parties.
• Vituscka then retained independent counsel, who sent the Daily Mail a claim letter asserting that Vituscka qualified as a whistleblower under New York law.
• The letter allegedly warned the company that taking adverse employment action against him could constitute unlawful retaliation.
• Vituscka was nevertheless subsequently terminated.
• According to his allegations, the Daily Mail told him that he had repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of integrity, making it impossible for the publication to continue relying upon him as a reporter.

🗑️ Vituscka Claims Retaliation Continued After His Termination [4:24–5:15]

• Vituscka alleges the retaliation did not stop when his employment ended.
• The April 2026 joint pretrial order in the broader litigation, where Blake Lively reportedly identified Vituscka as a potential trial witness.
• According to Vituscka, four days later the Daily Mail removed him from his online portfolio.
• He alleges this affected approximately 500 articles and exclusives, along with associated links and professional attribution accumulated during more than three years of work.
• Vituscka characterizes this as an effort to erase his professional record after he had become entangled in the litigation.

🚨 Vituscka’s Whistleblower Retaliation Theory [5:15–5:53]

• Vituscka connects his termination and the removal of his professional credits to his assertion of whistleblower protections.
• His theory, as LGA explains it, is that he was being pressured to participate in conduct he considered improper—including signing a federal-court declaration with which he did not completely agree.
• He also claims he was discouraged from obtaining independent counsel despite believing his personal interests were no longer aligned with his employer’s.
• He alleges that after raising those concerns and asserting legal protections, the Daily Mail retaliated by terminating him.

🧑‍⚖️ Additional Discrimination & Retaliation Allegations [5:53–7:25]

• Vituscka’s lawsuit also contains allegations extending beyond the It Ends With Us subpoenas.
• He alleges that an editor, identified as Mr. Ellis, made a sexual advance toward him at a Christmas party.
• Vituscka claims the editor’s treatment of him changed after he rejected or declined that advance, forming part of his retaliation allegations.
• He additionally alleges discrimination connected to an actual or perceived disability.
• During the stress surrounding the subpoenas, Vituscka says he consulted his therapist and took approximately one week away from work for his mental health.
• LGA notes that Vituscka characterizes this as a leave of absence, while predicting that the Daily Mail may dispute that characterization.
• Vituscka alleges this absence may also have contributed to his eventual termination.
• His complaint therefore brings multiple claims under New York law, including discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation.

♟️ LGA Views Vituscka as a “Pawn” Caught in a Much Bigger Fight [7:25–8:22]

• LGA says her impression remains similar to what she thought when Vituscka’s declarations first emerged: his primary concern appears to be protecting himself rather than advancing either Blake Lively’s or Wayfarer’s position.
• She describes him as a Daily Mail reporter who had worked to establish relationships with powerful and high-profile sources before becoming caught in litigation involving much larger players.
• According to his allegations, his words were misconstrued and he was pressured to sign documents he did not fully support.
• LGA therefore views Vituscka less as someone joining one “side” of the larger dispute and more as a potential casualty or pawn in a much bigger battle who is now attempting to reclaim his independence, professional reputation and legal rights.

🔍 Discovery Could Reveal What Was Really Happening Inside the Daily Mail [8:22–9:35]

• LGA characterizes the case itself as a relatively conventional employment lawsuit, meaning discovery could become the most revealing stage.
• Evidence could show whether the Daily Mail had documented, legitimate reasons for terminating Vituscka unrelated to the litigation—such as performance problems, previous reprimands or internal concerns about his reporting.
• Alternatively, discovery could reveal whether his employment problems escalated only after he became entangled in subpoenas from Leslie Sloane and the Wayfarer parties.
• LGA says this makes the lawsuit particularly interesting because discovery could expose additional information about what was happening behind the scenes both during the original movie controversy and throughout the subsequent litigation.
• Vituscka also allegedly suggests that the Daily Mail was engaged in some form of negotiation with Leslie Sloane—something LGA says she had already suspected when analyzing his earlier declaration.

"I loved playing Lily Bloom. She's beauty. She's grace. She's Miss United States."

"I'll give you my location. My Only Fans. My Capital One log in."

Blake Lively's Interview for It Ends With Us: Part 1

⚖️ New York Times Fee Award Does NOT Prove a Smear Campaign [0:00–0:29]

• LGA says she came across an Instagram post claiming that the New York Times winning its uncontested anti-SLAPP fee motion somehow proved Blake Lively’s allegations of a smear campaign.
• She strongly disagrees with that interpretation and says she wants to distinguish what the courts actually decided from arguments being made online.
• LGA says she attempted to engage directly with the creator about the issue but was subsequently blocked.

📰 Why the New York Times Was Dismissed [0:29–1:21]

• LGA explains that the New York Times prevailed on its motion to dismiss because the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by applicable legal privileges.
• This occurred very early in the litigation, before discovery, meaning the New York Times was effectively removed from the case before the broader factual record was developed.
• As a result, the New York Times did not participate in the subsequent discovery process or have to defend the underlying factual allegations through trial.
• LGA emphasizes that the dismissal concerned whether the publication could be held legally liable for the statements—not a judicial finding establishing the truth of every statement contained in the article.

🔍 No Court Finding That the NYT Article Was Factually True [1:21–1:55]

• LGA stresses what she sees as the critical distinction: the court did not make a factual determination that everything reported in the New York Times article was true.
• The allegedly defamatory statements were protected from liability, but LGA says that should not be confused with a judicial finding that the underlying allegations themselves were proven.
• She argues that the broader factual questions were never adjudicated through a trial.

⚖️ Smear-Campaign Allegations "Were Going To Be Decided" at Trial [1:38–2:16]

• LGA says the alleged smear campaign would have been litigated through Lively’s retaliation claim.
• However, Lively ultimately settled and walked away from the remaining litigation rather than taking those allegations before a jury.
• Therefore, there is no final court determination establishing whether a smear campaign actually occurred.
• The publicly available documents and evidence remain available for people to examine, but LGA says members of the public must draw their own conclusions rather than presenting those conclusions as judicial findings.

🗞️ The Public Can Still Criticize the New York Times’ Reporting [2:16–2:45]

• Because there was no factual trial determining the truth of the smear-campaign allegations, LGA says people remain free to believe that the New York Times cherry-picked evidence in its reporting.
• Likewise, people can form their own opinions about whether the article met appropriate standards of investigative journalism, credibility, integrity, or completeness.
• The central point is that those are opinions and interpretations of the evidence, not conclusions that were definitively resolved by the court.
• LGA reiterates that there has been no judicial determination declaring everything contained in the New York Times article to be factually true.

🚫 LGA Says She Challenged the Interpretation—and Was Blocked [2:45–2:56]

• LGA says she encouraged the Instagram creator to make clear that the post represented an argument or interpretation, rather than simply reporting what the legal filings established.
• According to LGA, the creator responded by blocking her.
• LGA therefore uses her own platform to clarify what she believes the legal record actually establishes: the New York Times prevailed on privilege grounds and obtained fees, but that outcome did not judicially prove Lively’s smear-campaign allegations or establish the truth of the entire article.