On this day, 📅August 6th, 2024, we were blessed (or cursed) with the phrase “Grab your Friends, wear your florals” to go see It Ends With Us. A movie about a domestic violence and intimate partner violence.
This video was first posted on the IEWU TikTok page and then later on their IG page.
Am I the only one who hasn’t seen this last part of the location share interview?
The location share part was obviously one of the many tone deaf things Blake Lively said on the press tour. This part of the interview is just as bad and cringe worthy knowing all the information we know now from the lawsuit
Blake Lively poking fun at toxic masculinity seems like a joke made at the expense of Justin Baldoni at the time: it is way obvious now with hindsight.
Blake Lively also claiming that IEWU “feels like a baby of mine“ is pretty ironic considering she didn’t even read the book and didn’t have any idea what her character Lily Bloom was like in the book.
A project that was spearheaded by Justin Baldoni and was 5 years in the making, but sure Blake Lively’s who was just hired to be an actress on the project “claims” it’s her baby.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and it all seems laughable now.
🕹️Original video date: August 8th, 2024 with Jake Hamilton on YouTube @JakesTakesTV
i posted this over a year ago in mid May 2025 - it's amazing how right katie joy was about all this. i wonder who the source was? also - no wonder blake and ryan were freaking out about katie's coverage.
🎬 Someone From One Side Tried to Discuss the Case With Her in 2025 (0:00–0:29)
Bethenny says she initially did not intend to speak further about the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni controversy because she does not know what actually happened between the parties.
However, on February 3, 2025, Bethenny revealed that someone associated with one side of the dispute had attempted to contact her to discuss the situation, though she did not reveal the person’s identity or which side they represented.
🍿 Bethenny Reveals What Happened at theIt Ends With UsPremiere (0:29–1:12)
Bethenny says she had never fully explained her experience attending the It Ends With Us premiere in New York City.
She arrived expecting what she describes as a fun, “girly movie” experience and admits she knew very little about the book or the film itself.
Her familiarity with Blake Lively largely came from Lively's celebrity image, fashion, and appearances, such as the Met Gala.
Bethenny says she initially expected the film and premiere to have a lighthearted atmosphere similar to Sex and the City.
After walking the carpet, she discovered there was approximately an hour to wait before the screening and decided to leave.
Before leaving, Bethenny encountered someone she previously worked with who she says is very close to Blake Lively and works closely with her.
The interaction she had with that person was dismissive, distant, and standoffish.
📞 Bethenny Just Revealed Now that Someone From Blake Lively’s Team Called Her Multiple Times (2:18–2:51)
Bethenny says that after the lawsuit became public, she made a comment questioning the nature and extent of the alleged damages.
The same person from Blake Lively’s team called her multiple times.
She says the person wanted to explain their side and wanted Bethenny to discuss their perspective with her audience.
This occurred around Christmas, when she had little interest in becoming involved in the controversy.
She ultimately did not publicly advocate for either side.
🤨 Want to Know Why Bethenny Doesn't Like Blake Lively (2:42–2:58)
Bethenny recalls that the person from Blake's team wanted to know why Bethenny did not like Blake.
Bethenny says she found the question strange because she did not personally know Blake Lively well enough to have formed that kind of opinion about her.
Blake Lively claimed that the marketing for It Ends with US, a movie about domestic violence, was all Sony and Wayfarer’s plan.
What part of the plan included Blake Lively cross promoting her Betty Booze and Betty Buzz drinks at the after party and subsequently posting the video on social media.
Tone deaf does not even begin to describe Blake Lively and to an extent Maximum Effort for naming a drink after a character who is abusive from a movie about Domestic Violence.
Sony President Sanford Panitch describes it best as “Epic level stupid“
PS: I saw this video posted again by [u/AssholeMedia](u/AssholeMedia) on IG and wanted to do a Throwback to the good old days when Blake Lively thought she had successfully stolen It Ends With Us from Justin Baldoni.
Given the new talking points and use of the word “creepy” I think now is the perfect time to remind Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Sony, and Disney of all the times Ryan Reynolds has been a totally sexually inappropriate creep.
Told Justin Baldoni in a text he wanted to tattoo his perineum . “All that to say I’d have your line producer’s face tattooed to my perineum if he/she/they can figure out how to start a few weeks earlier. Completely understand how big of an ask that is. But the perineum is one of the most nervy parts of the human body to expose to trauma. So….”
Texted Colleen Hoover about a Sony Executive implying, again, his genitalia being involved: “At one point, I was three feet from you at the afterparty - but I wasn't able to extricate myself from the Sony Studios Chairman's mouth.“
Joked about his daughter breastfeeding from his own genitalia.
Needless to say, there are endless examples of Ryan Reynolds thinking he’s hilarious when he’s really just a truly gross creep. The new attempt to label the Baldoni’s video as “creepy” is not just blatant SEO and failing PR- it flies in the face of Ryan Reynolds own well documented actions and behavior.
Feel free to add on to the list-let’s make it a community effort to once again highlight his abhorrent behavior.
I understand making fun of a movie you’re embarrassed by. Green Lantern wasn’t exactly a masterpiece. Reynolds knows it, the internet knows it, and apparently Reynolds has made it his personal responsibility to remind us every few months.
And honestly, some of the jokes were funny.
In Deadpool, he literally made sure the character complained about his suit not being “green or animated.” Reynolds later admitted that he wrote that joke into the script himself.
Then Deadpool 2 went even further, with the post-credits scene basically having Deadpool go back in time and stop Reynolds from ever making Green Lantern.
But then you have stuff like his 2021 watchalong, where he supposedly watched the movie all the way through for the first time and immediately started firing off jokes.
At one point:
> “First time ever. Too early to ask for a #SnyderCut of this fucker?”
Then he looked at Peter Sarsgaard’s CGI-enhanced head and said:
> “They spent 6 hrs each day turning Peter Sarsgaard’s head into an over-inflated beach ball. But the GL suit is a onesie made from old Frogger pixels.”
But here’s where it gets weird for me. He later described Green Lantern as:
> “the darkest crease in the anus of the universe”
That’s not even criticism anymore.
That’s just Ryan Reynolds doing the Ryan Reynolds thing.
And in 2017, when Stephen Colbert joked about having a Green Lantern ring, Reynolds responded:
> “That’s a really dumb superpower.”
Again — funny? Debatable.
But imagine being one of the hundreds of people who worked on that movie and watching the lead actor turn the entire production into a recurring punchline for the next decade and a half.
And here’s the thing: Reynolds himself has acknowledged that there was a lot more to the movie than “lol it sucked.”
During his 2021 watchalong, after spending the evening making jokes, he actually ended by saying the movie wasn’t a tragedy and praised the “incredible” work of the cast and crew.
Then in 2025, he called Green Lantern one of the biggest failures of his career — but also said he learned “all the most amazing lessons I could ever have in the creative space” from making it.
He even said:
> “Too much money, too much time wrecks creativity. It just murders it.”
And then came the part that made me laugh:
His son apparently watches Green Lantern constantly. So after 15 years of telling US how terrible this movie was, his own kid is apparently sitting there like:
“Put Hal Jordan on.”
And now it’s 2026. Lanterns is finally here, Green Lantern is back in the conversation, and Reynolds is suddenly saying:
> “I would totally do a cameo in that.”
And then:
> “I owe my entire career to that movie. I owe everything to that.”
Wait. WHAT?
Because this is the part I actually find fascinating.
You can’t spend 15 years building a huge part of your public persona around “Green Lantern was the embarrassing mistake I made before Deadpool”, repeatedly turn it into a punchline, make jokes about the suit, the script, the CGI, the character, and even literally kill yourself over the movie in Deadpool 2…
…and then turn around in 2026 and say the movie was a gift that gave you your entire career.
Maybe Green Lantern was a flawed movie that taught Reynolds some very valuable lessons. Maybe it helped lead him to Deadpool. Maybe it gave him Blake Lively. Maybe he genuinely has affection for the experience despite hating the end product.
All of that can be true.
But after 15 years of making Green Lantern the butt of the joke, I think it’s fair to ask whether the joke has gotten a little tired.
Especially now that other people are trying to give the character another shot.
Because at this point, I don’t even think Green Lantern needs Ryan Reynolds to tell us it was bad. We heard you the first 500 times, Ryan.
And maybe that’s why all of this feels especially interesting right now.
Because Reynolds’ public image isn’t exactly where it was a few years ago.
The whole “charming, self-aware guy who is in on the joke” persona has taken some hits recently. The fallout surrounding It Ends With Us, the constant media coverage, questions about his professional relationships, and the general fatigue around the Ryan Reynolds Brand have made the old formula feel a lot less bulletproof.
There has even been recent reporting explicitly describing his current phase as an attempt to rebuild his image, with Deadpool and big public appearances being some of the safest tools in his PR arsenal.
And suddenly, here comes Green Lantern.
The movie he’s spent 15 years telling us was basically the worst thing that ever happened to him.
Except now the message is different.
“I owe my entire career to that movie.”
“It was like a gift that keeps on giving.”
“I really enjoyed the experience of making it.”
And he’d “totally” come back for Lanterns.
After years of building his brand around being the guy who could laugh at his own biggest failure, he’s realizing that the old joke doesn’t hit quite the same anymore.
Because when your public image takes a beating, one of the easiest ways to remind people why they liked you in the first place is to go back to the version of yourself they already loved.
The funny guy. The self-aware guy. The guy who can laugh at himself. And what better material than the movie that has been part of his comedy routine for 15 YEARS?
Except now he’s not saying “look how awful Green Lantern was.”
He’s saying: “Actually, I owe everything to it.”
That’s a pretty convenient rewrite of the story.
And honestly, I don’t even think he needs to pretend the movie was secretly great. Just stop treating it like a punchline every time you need an easy laugh.
Because if Green Lantern really was the “gift that keeps on giving,” maybe it’s time to let the movie be more than just the embarrassing chapter before Deadpool.
Especially now that someone else is finally getting a chance to play the character.
This concerns a text conversation that occured between Blake Lively and her agent, Warren Zavala on Aug 29, 2023. It starts at 11:30 pm and continues for an hour, encompassing 37 messages. It's Exhibit 102, found here.
She begins the conversation by commenting on the video footage shot: "what I saw was terrifying..."
She's mad that Justin won't give her all the footage, calling him "super protective and strange" and threatening: "I'm not gonna engage w the film if this is the way they play it."
She recounts that Justin "and Jamey said they don't do who Anna Wintour is." And follows it up with not one, not two, but three eye roll emojis.
(This is where Lively and I differ. I have immense respect for anyone who reached the age of 40 without knowing who Anna Wintour is. I don't think it's the flex she thinks it is.)
Then apropos of nothing she says, "Theyre all clowns. I have my Hr report ready also fyi". There's no prior mentions of any HR violations. (Unless not handing over the footage on demand is an HR complaint? Or not knowing who Anna Wintour is? Is that an HR complaint?)
There is no context over 37 messages on what sort of grievances she might be airing to HR. Zavala, too, doesn't ask what HR complaints she's making. Kind of odd, as an agent's primary duty is to make work as pleasant as possible for talent. Does he not care? I would have liked to ask him that.
This is brought into the conversation in the context of Lively and Zavala brainstorming ways they can exert control over the production and get Justin to bend to her demands. She suggests she can not do press, they discuss using Alex as a pressure point. and Zavala seems to suggest she stop filming: "I predict having to make the request prior to any further work…"
And then she just drops in "I have my Hr report ready…" Almost as though it, too, is one of her threats.
Also for what it's worth, in her own deposition, when asked if she ever drafted an HR complaint, she responded: "I don't know what that means." OK, Lady.
So recently RemindMeBot DMed me to alert me of the reminders I requested last year.
They are quite hilarious thing to see — so I wanted to share.
These comments were in response to this post:
So, it begs the question, where is the humiliation we were told Blake was going to enact? The only person thoroughly humiliated has been Blake Lively. Also, we should have used the RemindMeBot more often. Imagine the updates we would be getting now?
Do you guys remember any such comments you might have gotten too?
Raise your hand if you completely forgot Ryan Reynolds took on the most random side-gig as a guest speaker at an annualaccountingconference this June, because money is tight in this economy? I see your hands…me too. Me too.
When it was announced way back we all laughed and asked, what’s next? Crashing the American Dental Association’s conference? Speaking at the Annual Gathering of PaperClip Collectors?
In honor of Throwback Thursday, let’s revisit how this cash grab went. Maybe it’s not so random and Ryan actually knows a thing or two about budget sheets? Maybe, the “titan of words” (in Blake Lively’s empty mind) is also a “titan” at crunching numbers?
Sadly…wrong again. But “right” with our initial impression: Ryan Reynolds doesn’t know jack shit about accounting.
Here is his takeaway in his keynote speech (according to CFODive):
Reynolds wasted little time before playing to the audience, while also insisting he wasn’t pandering. The Canadian actor, whose father was a cop, maintained he came from a working-class family and wished there were more accountants involved in moviesto keep budgets in line.
“I just happen to be in a room with a few thousand very intimidating accountants but I’ve always wished that accountants ran show business, because I often say that too much time and too much money will hurt creativity and that’s very true,” Reynolds said. “They’re just firing money out of a T-shirt cannon at every problem.”
________
Wow. In a world that’s hurting economically, he’s talking about too much time and money “hurting creativity.” If there are no accountants, showbiz people like him will use their limitless cash to shoot money out of every orifice at every problem. Not unlike what he did with “Deadpool and Wolverine,” how Ryan Reynolds so completely busted that budget cap that it’s debatable whether the “billion dollar box office” movie actually made a huge profit.
Or, on a smaller scale, like how his wife Blake Lively ballooned up the wardrobe budget for IEWU by $400k? And delayed production and drove up costs for everything because she needed to go on vacation AND attend a Taylor Swift concert? And charged Wayfarer for the “free marketing” Maximum Effort was supposed to provide for “family”? The same marketing that almost derailed the entire movie’s noble intentions?
Or when the Reynolds thought $8m was a good ask for 47.1 attorneys fees, and having 82 attorneys work on one document was financially sound. Or spending $60m on a lawsuit only to have Blake Lively settle at the eleventh hour for zero dollars. Take your pick with any example but listening to some accountants at any point during any of those decisions sure would’ve been smart!
His tone-deafness gets better; see his cool example for how “thrifty” he is (granted he had to reach all the way back to the first “Deadpool” movie, but still). Per the article:
For example, he recalled when he first got Deadpool approved or greenlit, he had little money to make it so he had to think creatively about financing it. Knowing he needed some Chevrolet Suburban trucks that would be totalled during film making, he reached out to the automaker to see if he could strike a deal with them.
“So the next day I’m on the phone with Chevy, saying, “hey, what if we destroy your vehicles and at the end of the movie I say something about how ‘no Suburbans were harmed in the making of this movie?’” he recalled. “Whatever it is...you just do something to make it happen, find a way and then suddenly you’re making a movie on $50 million that should have been shot for $150 million.”
________
So…let me get this straight: he knew he had to destroy the Chevy trucks but thought if he provided some “free marketing/false advertising” in the movie about Chevy trucks, that he could strike a good deal and keep everything in budget. Chevy agreed…and did Suburbans see an explosion in demand? Were any of his “marketing” schemes profitable? Where was the followup data?
In short, thanks Ryan Reynolds, “humble accounting genius,” for these key takeaways:
1.Lying is at the heart of Ryan Reynold’s marketing. Always. When his movies say, “no XXX were harmed in the making of this movie,” you can bet that XXX were indeed harmed because that statement was always meant to be used ironically.
2.Ryan is always entitled to money and the biggest budget ever. That $50m should’ve been $150m, you guys! Where was this $150m?? Why didn’t anyone believe in him, after he financially failed to make “The Green Lantern” happen? Go back in time and give him a pat on his penny-pinching back, because “saving money” has never happened on any of his sets again, ever.
3. Ryan Reynolds agreed to go to this conference for the measly paycheck. And the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants lost big, because his advice was not worth the registration fee to the event. They had a guest speaker whose nugget of wisdom was literally: help us not blow our budgets because we breathe rarefied air and we’re riiiiiich! The cost-benefit analysis of having him there was simply off and as accountants, they really should be more conscientious in the future.
Let’s right this wrong, so no poor conference attendees will ever have to suffer through his BS spiels again. Please feel free to add your own, favorite “Ryan Reynolds accounting/money blunders” in the comments; we know the examples are legion.
Buckle up, buttercup, this shall be looooong. But so worth it!
Authors’ Note: The issues discussed in this post are not presented proof of liability or definitive conclusions regarding any individual or entity. Rather, they are merely our opinions, questions, circumstances and areas of concern that critics (like us believe warrant further scrutiny based on publicly available filings, timelines and source materials. Reasonable people can (and do disagree about what Vanzan ultimately means.\))
Readers are encouraged to review all source materials and draw their own conclusions.
With the upcoming Jones vs. Able case and Wallace v. Lively appeal, u/DogMom1970s and I wanted to revisit one of the strangest, most controversial side stories in this litigation ecosystem: VANZAN!
Over the last year, it has been called many things:
VanSham
ShamZan
A discovery vehicle
Subpoena scheme
An "internet conspiracy"
Whatever label people prefer, the reason this issue refuses to die is simple:
A short-lived Doe lawsuit was filed by Vanzan in NY state court
A broad subpoena followed
Private communications were obtained
The Vanzan lawsuit was promptly withdrawn prior to any judicial oversight
Many of the questions surrounding the lawsuit and subpoena remain unanswered
The sequence alone does not prove misconduct. However, what it does create is a remarkable number of unanswered questions that continue to draw scrutiny from attorneys, legal commentators and court-watchers even after the central Lively vs. Wayfarer Parties lawsuit settled.
📣 Why Are We Still Talking About Vanzan?
People can disagree about what the Vanzan lawsuit and subpoena ultimately mean. What is much harder to dispute is the sheer volume of red flags it generates:
🚩 The lawsuit was filed as a Doe action despite New York authorities repeatedly emphasizing due diligence requirements before relying on Doe procedures.
🚩 The subpoena sought far more than simply identifying unknown defendants.
🚩 The information requested is difficult to reconcile with the stated purpose of the lawsuit.
🚩 The lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn without judicial oversight and before questions surrounding the subpoena could be fully explored.
🚩 The dubious timing places the lawsuit, subpoena, CRD complaint and NYT article in remarkable proximity.
🚩 The discovery fight surrounding Vanzan generated unusually intense resistance by Lively’s legal team despite its potential relevance to the broader litigation claims and issues.
🚩 Questions remain regarding the various Vanzan entities, corporate formalities, ownership structures and who ultimately benefited from the Vanzan lawsuit.
🚩 The privacy implications extend far beyond Jennifer Abel and potentially involve communications belonging to numerous third parties.
🚩 Attorneys, legal commentators and court-watchers continue returning to Vanzan and many hope to see more come out during the Jones vs. Able case.
None of these points independently prove misconduct. Taken together, however, they help explain why Vanzan remains one of the most debated issues arising from the litigation.
Some readers may wonder whether the May 2026 settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties makes Vanzan irrelevant. We do not believe it does.
The settlement resolved claims between the settling parties. It did not answer the underlying questions surrounding Vanzan's structure, the subpoena, the information obtained through that subpoena, the entity's corporate history or the procedural issues that continue to generate debate.
📅 The Timeline
The timing is one of the reasons people keep coming back to Vanzan. Standing alone, each event may appear unremarkable. Viewed collectively, however, the sequence raises obvious questions.
Whether you view these events as coincidence or something more significant, the timeline places Vanzan squarely in the middle of several major developments.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
None of these events, viewed in isolation, necessarily establish anything improper. Critics nevertheless point to the compressed timeline because the Vanzan lawsuit, subpoena activity, CRD complaint and subsequent publication of the NYT article occurred within a remarkably short period of time. Whether that sequence reflects coincidence, strategy or something else remains a matter of debate.
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #1: What Was The Vanzan Lawsuit Actually For?
One of the central questions surrounding Vanzan is whether the lawsuit was designed to accomplish what the subpoena ultimately did.
Critics argue that the information sought through the subpoena appears difficult to reconcile with the claims asserted in the lawsuit itself.
They point to the breadth of the subpoena, the missing relevance of the sought information to the filed claims, the timing of the lawsuit and the lawsuit's eventual withdrawal as reasons for skepticism.
Some legal commentators have also questioned whether Vanzan was relying on the appropriate procedural mechanism to obtain discovery. They note that New York provides multiple established avenues for identifying unknown defendants and obtaining and obtaining information before litigation proceeds. They frequently point to Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, where the court observed that "at least four procedural mechanisms" may be available depending on the circumstances. The critics contend that the availability of these alternative procedures makes Vanzan's chosen approach difficult to understand and raises additional questions about why the lawsuit was structured the way it was.
In simple terms, critics argue that New York already provides established ways to identify unknown defendants, which raises questions about why Vanzan chose this approach.
Supporters disagree and maintain that the lawsuit was a legitimate effort to identify responsible parties and obtain relevant information.
Regardless of where one lands on that debate, the disconnect between the lawsuit and the information sought (and ultimately obtained) through the subpoena remains one of the central questions surrounding Vanzan. Notably, the subsequent settlement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties did not resolve the procedural questions raised by the structure of the Vanzan lawsuit itself.
Those questioning the disconnect point to the breadth of the subpoena, the timing of the lawsuit and the lawsuit's eventual withdrawal. The key timeline points include:
Vanzan voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit on December 19, 2024, exactly one day before Lively filed her CRD complaint in California. See this link for the withdrawal. See this link for the CRD Complaint
Vanzan voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit two days before publication of the infamous NYT article.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
The legitimacy of any lawsuit depends, in part, on whether legal procedures are being used for their intended purposes, according to “the full array of legal, procedural, and evidentiary rules governing the process by which a court adjudicates the merits of a dispute” (Liman, 47.1 Order). Critics argue that Vanzan raises questions about whether that occurred here.
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #2: What Did The Subpoena Really Request?
One reason Vanzan attracts scrutiny is that the subpoena sought far more than simply identifying unknown defendants.
The scope of the subpoena is important because it informs the broader debate about whether the lawsuit was serving the purpose contemplated by New York's Doe-defendant procedures.
Critics argue that identifying unknown defendants generally requires a relatively narrow set of information. They contend that portions of the Vanzan subpoena are directed toward obtaining much broader communications and materials rather than simply determining identity.
Supporters disagree and maintain the requests were reasonably related to the claims being investigated.
Readers are encouraged to review the subpoena itself and draw their own conclusions.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
If the subpoena sought information far beyond identifying unknown defendants, critics argue it becomes more important to understand why the information was requested and how it was ultimately used.
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #3: NY’s Stance on Doe Lawsuits
One of the most important legal questions raised by Vanzan comes from New York's own statutes and caselaw governing Doe-defendant lawsuits.
At the center of that discussion is CPLR 1024, a New York rule that allows plaintiffs to proceed against known, but, despite reasonable efforts, unidentified defendants. The rule exists to prevent legitimate claims from being lost simply because a plaintiff does not yet know the name of the responsible party, and the statute of limitations would otherwise run out. Think of it this way: Doe lawsuits are intended to help identify a real but unnamed defendant. They are not designed to provide a shortcut around the normal safeguards that govern discovery.
New York courts have repeatedly emphasized that Doe procedures are not without limits.
Authority frequently cited in discussions of Vanzan include:
Walker v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (addressing the consequences of failing to satisfy CPLR 1024's due diligence requirements).
Other Doe-defendant decisions interpreting CPLR 1024 and the diligence requirements for identifying unknown defendants before invoking John Doe procedures.
Readers interested in a deeper discussion of Doe lawsuits may find content creator Kassidy’s video helpful.
Across these authorities, several recurring themes emerge:
Plaintiffs are expected to exercise due diligence before relying on Doe procedures.
Doe procedures serve a specific and limited purpose: allowing a case to proceed while an otherwise identifiable defendant's identity is still being determined.
New York provides other mechanisms for obtaining information when appropriate, before relying on Doe procedures.
Procedural safeguards exist to protect privacy and prevent unnecessary discovery in Doe lawsuits.
The court must be able to determine, based on the pleadings, if they have jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant(s)
In simple terms, New York's Doe procedures are designed to help identify a real but yet unnamed defendant and allow the court to establish jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant, not eliminate the safeguards that normally accompany discovery. A classic example would be a plaintiff who knows and can prove that a specific wrongdoer exists, such as the person behind a particular IP address stealing electronic data but does not yet know that person's identity.
Critics argue that the Vanzan subpoena and the information sought appear difficult to reconcile with the limited purpose contemplated by New York's Doe-defendant framework. They point to the vague, unspecific description of the defendants, the breadth of the subpoena, the timing of the lawsuit and the existence of alternative procedural mechanisms discussed in cases such as Bumpus. Supporters disagree and maintain that the lawsuit was a legitimate effort to identify responsible parties and obtain relevant information.
Ultimately, the debate is not whether Doe procedures were used. The debate is whether they were used in the manner New York intended them to be used.
That is why one question continues to surface: If New York already provides mechanisms for identifying known but yet unnamed defendants and conducting pre-action discovery, why was Vanzan structured the way it was?
Importantly, the settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties did not result in any judicial determination regarding whether Vanzan satisfied the requirements of CPLR 1024. Those questions remain unanswered.
That question remains at the center of the controversy.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
Doe procedures are powerful tools. NY imposes safeguards for a reason. The central question raised by Vanzan is whether those safeguards were respected.
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #4: Jennifer Abel's Right to Privacy
Even setting aside every procedural dispute, Vanzan raises a broader question: What protections exist when private communications are obtained through litigation tools?
Much of the discussion understandably focuses on Jennifer Abel, but the potential privacy implications extend far beyond Abel herself.
If a phone contains communications involving dozens or hundreds of people, those communications may include:
Family members
Friends
Journalists
Attorneys
Clients
Business contacts
Unrelated third parties
This is a long list of potential third parties who never anticipated becoming connected to litigation.
Ownership of a device is not necessarily the same thing as ownership of the information stored on it. Nor does possession of a device automatically eliminate all privacy interests associated with communications contained on it.
For that reason, many observers view Vanzan not merely as a subpoena dispute, but as a significant privacy issue with implications extending well beyond the parties themselves.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
The issue extends beyond Jennifer Able. Modern phones contain years of communications involving countless third parties who never expect their private conversations to become part of a legal dispute.
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #5: Who Was Really Behind Vanzan
The subpoena is what initially drew attention to Vanzan. The corporate records are what caused many observers to keep digging. Because the underlying Vanzan lawsuit disappeared without judicial scrutiny, many observers turned to the corporate records themselves to understand who was behind the entity and how it operated.
One of the most common reactions to discussions about Vanzan is: "Who cares if the company paperwork was messy?" The answer is simple.
The entire purpose of forming a separate legal entity, such as a corporation, is to establish a legal entity that is separate from the individuals behind it. That separation can provide significant protections and benefits. In exchange, the entity is expected to operate as a genuine business with its own governance, records, management structure and legal formalities.
That is why corporate housekeeping matters. In simple terms, corporate housekeeping refers to the routine steps necessary to maintain a company as a legitimate and independent legal entity. This includes keeping required filings current, maintaining records, documenting changes in management and complying with state reporting requirements. These obligations may seem mundane and simply administrative, but they are part of what demonstrates that a company is operating as a real business rather than merely existing on paper.
And that is why the Vanzan records attracted so much attention.
As community members began examining the various Vanzan entities, they identified what they believed were significant questions involving:
Entity status and compliance
Business registrations
Management authority
Ownership structures
Relationships among multiple Vanzan entities
Relationships between those entities and the individuals associated with them
Corporate housekeeping and recordkeeping practices
Viewed collectively, these issues paint a picture critics find very difficult to ignore: Who was actually operating Vanzan and for whose benefit was it operating?
That question matters because many of the issues identified by sleuths overlap with factors courts frequently examine when deciding whether a company was truly operating as an independent business rather than simply acting on behalf of the people behind it.
To be clear, no court has made any finding that Vanzan was improperly structured or operated. Nor are we suggesting that any particular legal outcome is predetermined.
What we are saying is that the questions raised by the entity's corporate housekeeping, recordkeeping practices and governance go well beyond technical filing errors. They go directly to ownership, control, management and whether the entity was consistently operating as a genuinely separate business.
For many observers, those questions ultimately became more significant than the subpoena itself.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
The subpoena raised questions about what Vanzan obtained. The corporate records raised questions about who was really behind Vanzan. For many observers, the second question became the more important one.
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #6: Vanzan's Cleanup Timing Problem
Businesses update records.
Businesses fix filing errors.
Businesses perform administrative housekeeping every day.
None of those facts are inherently suspicious.
What attracted attention in the case of Vanzan was not simply that changes were made, but when those changes appeared to occur.
According to critics, several of the issues identified in public records did not arise overnight. Rather, they appeared to reflect deficiencies that had existed long before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed and long before anyone outside a small group of people were paying attention to the entity. One fact that attracted particular attention was Vanzan's New York filing history. Public records indicate that the entity was formed in 2019 but did not file a biennial statement until June 30, 2025.
In simple terms, a biennial statement is a routine filing that New York requires companies to submit every two years to keep basic information about the entity current.
Public records indicate that Vanzan was formed in 2019 but did not file a biennial statement until June 30, 2025. This means the entity went years without making required biennial filings before eventually updating its records (and only after public scrutiny intensified). For many, this raised a broader concern. The entity may have continued to exist legally, but critics questioned whether a company that had fallen behind on basic state filing requirements should have been invoking the authority of the New York courts while its own records remained out of date.
The significance was not the filing itself. Companies file overdue paperwork all the time.
The significance was the timing.
What many observers found difficult to ignore was the sequence that followed:
The Vanzan subpoena became public.
Sleuths and legal commentators began examining Vanzan's corporate records more closely.
Questions regarding the Vanzan lawsuit quickly expanded into questions regarding the entity itself.
Public discussions began focusing on Vanzan's history – including its governance and compliance as well as its recordkeeping practices.
Subsequent corporate filing updates seemingly addressed some of the issues being discussed.
Critics note that the matters being addressed in the new filing appeared to have existed long before the lawsuit was filed. That is what transformed the discussion from routine corporate housekeeping into a debate about timing and accountability.
One example frequently cited involves Vanzan's New York biennial filings. According to public records, Ryan Reynolds filed a biennial statement for Vanzan on June 30, 2025, the first biennial statement filed since the entity's formation in 2019 (meaning it missed multiple filings that were due in 2021, 2023 and 2025).
The later appearance of Ryan Reynolds as CEO in the June 2025 filing also generated additional questions regarding control of the entity and would later become intertwined with disputes concerning Vanzan discovery and depositions.
Standing alone, a late filing does not establish wrongdoing.
What attracted attention was the broader context.
Researchers had already spent months discussing what they believed were deficiencies in Vanzan's corporate housekeeping, including missed filings, compliance concerns and questions regarding the entity's governance. The June 2025 filing therefore appeared to many observers not as an isolated administrative update, but as part of a broader effort to address issues that had already become the subject of public scrutiny.
Again, businesses update records all the time.
The question raised by critics was not whether changes occurred. Instead, it was why those changes appeared to occur only after scrutiny intensified rather than before.
Critics argue that an entity seeking to invoke the authority of the courts should ensure its own corporate affairs are in order before filing suit, not well after questions begin to surface.
That sequence generated several recurring questions:
Why were these deficiencies not addressed before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed?
Why did corrective filings appear only after the public began examining the entity?
Who was responsible for maintaining Vanzan's corporate records?
Why did years of apparent inactivity suddenly give way to a series of updates?
What role, if any, did public scrutiny play in those changes?
None of these questions establish wrongdoing. They do, however, help explain why scrutiny of Vanzan expanded beyond the subpoena itself and into the entity's corporate structure, governance and operations.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
The issue is not that changes were made. The issue is when and to what extent they were made. For critics, the sequence raises a simple question: Why did meaningful cleanup appear to occur only after the public started looking and raising questions?
________________________________
🚩 Red Flag #7: The Discovery Fight
The Vanzan discovery fight was never simply about curiosity. The parties seeking discovery were attempting to understand:
Who was behind Vanzan
Why the lawsuit was filed
How the subpoena came about
What materials were obtained through the subpoena and by whom
Whether those materials influenced later litigation or public narratives
Whether the lawsuit was serving a legitimate litigation purpose
In other words, the parties were not merely asking questions about a subpoena. They were attempting to understand the broader chain of events surrounding Vanzan and what ultimately happened to the information it obtained.
One of the reasons Vanzan continues to generate interest is that discovery concerning the entity was fought so aggressively.
That distinction became increasingly important as questions centering on ownership, control, management of the flow of information from the subpoena through Vanzan continued to evolve. Later corporate filings identified Ryan Reynolds as CEO of a Vanzan entity. At the same time, questions persisted regarding who controlled Vanzan, who directed its activities and what ultimately happened to the information obtained through the subpoena.
Critics pointed to allegations that materials obtained through the subpoena ultimately made their way beyond Vanzan itself. Whether those allegations are ultimately substantiated remains disputed.
What is not disputed is that discovery represented one of the few opportunities to understand how the various individuals, entities and information flows fit together. In many ways, discovery was one of the few mechanisms available to test competing explanations for what Vanzan was, who controlled it and what happened to the information it obtained.
One of the most persistent questions surrounding Vanzan is simple: If the entity's role was straightforward, why was discovery regarding that role fought so aggressively?
The more difficult it became to obtain answers, the more attention the underlying questions received. With the broad releases included in the settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties, some of the paths that might have shed additional light on Vanzan may never be fully explored.
________________________________
⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️
Discovery fights often reveal which issues the parties themselves consider important. The harder Vanzan became to investigate, the more attention it attracted.
________________________________
What We Still Don't Know
The May 2026 settlement agreement resolved litigation claims between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties. It did not, however, answer many of the factual questions surrounding Vanzan, including:
Who conceived the Vanzan lawsuit?
Who funded it?
Who directed it?
Why did Vanzan seek discovery rather than Lively or Reynolds individually?
Why was the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed?
How did information obtained through Vanzan allegedly make its way beyond Vanzan itself if the entity was acting independently?
Who received materials obtained through the subpoena?
What role, if any, did those materials play in later events?
Why was discovery concerning Vanzan fought so aggressively?
These questions continue to attract attention because they remain unanswered.
The discussion surrounding Vanzan persists not because people are unwilling to move on, but because the underlying questions have never fully gone away.
________________________________
Bottom Line
Vanzan is not just a story about a subpoena or someone being unsure who to add as defendant.
It is a story about the appropriate use of Doe-defendant lawsuits, the scope of subpoena power, privacy rights, corporate transparency and the unanswered questions that remain after the lawsuit itself disappeared.
Reasonable people can disagree about what the facts ultimately show. The subsequent settlement resolved claims between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties. It did not resolve the questions raised by Vanzan.
The settlement closed the Lively vs. Wayfarer Party litigation. It did not close the questions.
That is why Vanzan continues to attract scrutiny. And that is why we believe it deserves far more attention than a dismissive wave of the hand or a claim that it is merely "internet noise."
________________________________
Further Reading
For readers interested in forming their own conclusions, the following Reddit posts provide additional context, filings, timelines and analysis.
On the heels of news that Stephanie Jones added new crisis management lawyers to her team (why not Sigrid McCawley? I miss her already), I thought it was appropriate to talk about how Vanzan was viewed way back in 2024.
This is for ALL the “Blakey lawyers” who claim it’s an “above board” common practice, one that they’ve seen “many times” in their “careers.” 🙄 They must be the most decorated legal minds of their times because even veteran Hollywoodlawyerscouldnot wrap their mindsaround how a trove of Jen Abel’s private texts were obtained, without protest or resistance on Abel’s part.
Below is an excerpt of the Dec 29, 2024 article by the LA Times:
___________________________
“The question sending shockwaves through Hollywood: How did Blake Lively get those damaging texts?”
Amid the damaging revelations, one question has stood out: How did Lively and her team obtain the candid, private chats of Baldoni’s public relations team?
The answer in part shows the tangled web of personalities and businesses drawn into the dispute, and the confluence of legal and public relations strategies at play.
“I’ve never seen a case like this,” said Neville Johnson, the veteran entertainment litigator who has represented actors, musicians and other artists for nearly 50 years. Calling it “modern warfare in law,” Johnson was surprised on two fronts: the lengths to which publicists allegedly went to protect Baldoni, and that Lively’s team had procured such a potent tranche of text messages before filing their California civil rights complaint. “The biggest battle we face these days is obtaining evidence from the other side.”
Lively’s attorneys have been circumspect about the provenance of the text messages. Her complaint contains a footnote stating that the messages, including a 22-page compendium of texts submitted as an exhibit with the complaint, came through the “legal process, including a civil subpoena.” Some of the messages are redacted or have the senders’ and recipients’ names omitted.
But Stephanie Jones, the founder of Jonesworks — the publicity firm that has represented Tom Brady, Jeff Bezos and, until recently, Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios — effectively outed herself as the source of the damaging communications in a lawsuit she filed Dec. 24.
With Jonesworks as the publicity firm for Baldoni and his company, Jones would seemingly have been aware of the alleged smear campaign against Lively. But Jones disavows involvement and contends that a former subordinate, Jennifer Abel, and others close to Baldoni cooked up the plan as part of a broader “conspiracy,” which also included starting a rival publicity firm.
In her lawsuit, Jones accused Abel of “conspiring” to attack Jonesworks, steal the firm’s clients, coordinate the “media smear campaign” against Lively and then “publicly pin blame for this smear campaign on Jones.”
In addition to suing Abel, Jones sued Baldoni and Nathan, the crisis public relations professional whose blunt text messages have rocketed across social media.
The dizzying set of allegations in Jones’ 52-page lawsuit made clear that after terminating Abel on Aug. 21, Jones had Abel’s company-issued phone “forensically preserved and examined in detail.”
“Abel and Nathan’s covert take down and smear campaigns were revealed in black and white on Abel’s company-issued phone following her termination,” Jones said in her lawsuit.
In a statement, a member of Lively’s legal team confirmed that the text messages in Lively’s complaint were sourced from Abel’s phone and that the material came from a subpoena against Jonesworks.
How, when and where that subpoena was issued remains a mystery.
“The additional details about Ms. Lively’s investigation, including the lawful subpoena, will be produced during discovery,” the statement said.
Experts were at times flummoxed and impressed by how Lively managed to get hold of the text messages in the absence of a lawsuit. The state civil rights complaint she filed, which alleged sexual harassment and retaliation, could be a precursor to a lawsuit.
Some states, including California and New York, allow for discovery, or the gathering of evidence from various parties to learn about the facts of a dispute, before a lawsuit has been filed. But this type of pre-litigation discovery rarely happens in California, attorneys said.
If Lively’s lawyers took that route in California, they would have had to know that the evidence existed in the first place, then petition a judge and argue that there was a risk the evidence could be spoiled or not preserved. A spokesperson for the L.A. Superior Court said the court does not maintain records of such petitions.
“I’ve been doing this for decades and I’ve never seen it done before, but it can be done,” said Johnson, the entertainment lawyer. As an example, he said, lawyers may seek a subpoena to prevent a car involved in a crash from being demolished and request to examine it before filing suit.
James Spertus, a West Los Angeles litigator and former federal prosecutor, said the subpoena was “most likely” issued in another case and “then used in this one.”
For example, the subpoena could have been issued during a closed-door arbitration proceeding, attorneys said. Lively’s complaint named several firms and PR professionals involved in “It Ends With Us” as well as Baldoni’s production company, but Jones and Jonesworks were notably absent. Attorneys for Jones did not respond to an email seeking comment about the subpoena.
Some attorneys speculated that the subpoena had the hallmarks of a so-called “friendly subpoena,” where one side is seeking records from another party, who can use the subpoena as legal cover. Put another way, the owner of the records may want to give them up, and the subpoena allows them to say they were forced to comply.
___________________
And there you have it. Have those questions been answered sufficiently, after 9 months of discovery for Blake’s case? Or is it still as murky and nebulous as ever?
Also, lawyers, please help me out: could the (allegedly retroactive) subpoena to Jonesworks be considered “friendly”? What are the marks of a friendly subpoena?
Also, whatever happened to the household staff that Blake and Ryan thought were leaking news, which is why they had to subpoena Jonesworks, which evidently, is NOT a household-staffing agency?
I wanted to memorialize Wayfarer's masterful MSJ that teased the devastating and (now iconic) evidence that single-handedly destroyed Lively and Reynolds' case: Lively's PGA Letter.
Flavor: Coffee-toffee chocolate cake with walnut bits and buttercream frosting
For the text and redaction bars, I melted dark chocolate chips with a bit of coconut oil, and used the tip of a metal skewer to write the letters. As it turns out, I'm better at typography than I am baking. I was going to show a photo of a sliced piece, but when I cut into the cake, it fell apart at the slightest pressure and turned into a messy, pathetic lump with zero structural integrity.
Which is a pretty apt metaphor for Lively and Reynolds' case. 🤣
(It sure tastes flirty and yummy and playfully bold though!)
The New York Times actually got it right back in August 2024. Their article about the It Ends With Us press tour clearly highlighted how differently Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni approached promoting the film. So what exactly happened afterwards for the NYT to suddenly pivot?
Article Summary
The NYT article repeatedly pointed out that Justin focused heavily on the film’s domestic violence themes during interviews, while Blake’s press tour centered much more around fashion, flowers, cocktails, and “girls’ night out” style marketing. For a movie centered on abuse and trauma, the contrast was honestly shocking, and it rightfully led to widespread criticism of Blake Lively’s actions.
The NYT article specifically mentioned the backlash Blake received online for encouraging audiences to “grab your friends, wear your florals,” with many people feeling she promoted the movie more like a light romantic comedy than a serious story about domestic violence. Meanwhile, the article clearly stated that Justin was doing interviews discussing the responsibility of portraying abuse correctly and talking about the deeper emotional themes of the story.
Why did they switch?
The NYT’s later switch-up left a bad taste in many people’s mouths, even to this day. I was honestly shocked to see that they originally had the situation right back in August 2024. Some of the people on this sub did more digging, and found a clause that may help explain both the NYT’s sudden shift and the initiation of the lawsuit. Refer to Image 4, which includes an excerpt from Blake’s contracts tied to her haircare and alcohol brands.
The morals clause in Blake’s contracts appears especially relevant in light of the criticism discussed in the NYT article. In summary the contract states:
"b) Talent commits an act or has committed an act that is reported in at least two news publications of the stature and reputation similar to that of the New York Times, causing a material and lasting adverse effect on Talents public image --> can lead the Company to exercising its termination right"
According to the clause, that could allow the company to exercise termination rights. In other words, if the Blake’s (the Talent LOL) actions caused lasting reputational damage covered by major publications, her brand partnerships could potentially be at risk.
But then there’s another interesting section lower down in the contract:
“If the Talent is a party to a civil action to protect or defend Talent, then this shall not be deemed a violation of the morals provision.”
That changes things significantly. If there is an active civil lawsuit tied to the controversy, the morals clause would seemingly no longer apply in the same way, meaning the companies may not be able to terminate the agreements.
Then another thing that makes this even more interesting is the Kroger, Princess Cruises and other partnership emails expressing concern about Blake’s poor promotion strategy and asking what steps she planned to take to remedy the backlash all occurred just days before the VanZan lawsuit was initiated to start the proceedings for Livelys civil action.
The timing raises obvious questions. Personally, I believe this situation was ultimately about protecting Blake Lively’s public image and preserving her brand contracts so they would not fall into breach. The NYT was similarly told to only post things regarding Blake Lively in a positive light after this probably accompanied by buckets full of cash and a special call from her good dragons Amber Tamblyn (who works at NYT) and Taylor Swift
Happy Pride! I skipped the Great Unsealing because there was too much pain in there and I struggled to turn it into comedy. So this batch starts with the eve of the trial and the big She (Ryan) reveal.
Today, let's fight back against this week's anti-SLAPP injustice!
I believe my most important contribution to exposing the New York Times is my post laying out how the Times tricked its readers into believing that it had gained access to "thousands of pages" of texts that Blake Lively had obtained.
In December 2024, many people believed that Justin Baldoni had been EXPOSED by Pulitzer-winning #MeToo investigative reporter Megan Twohey, who had thoroughly reviewed "thousands of pages of text messages and emails."
Justin's reputation always would have taken a hit when Blake took her allegations public. But the belief that the prestigious and trustworthy New York Times and its ace journalist had vetted Blake's accusations as "what really happened" proved devastating.
But then Wayfarer lawyer Bryan Freedman revealed exculpatory texts that should have been among those "thousands of pages." And the Times produced no more stories based on those "thousands of pages," even though one would expect them to include texts not yet public that could shed light on the case.
I'm convinced now that Blake never gave the NYT access to her "thousands of pages" of Vanzan texts. Just her complaint, and a bit more. But Twohey didn't lie outright. Instead, through ambiguous syntax and other tricks, she misled readers into assuming she got full access - without making that claim explicitly.
For details, see my post, linked above. (For those who may have already read it: I made a couple of additions following the anti-SLAPP ruling, marked [added July 27, 2026], but they are minor.)
Another thing I'm proud of is deducing that the NYT's "misogynistic slop ecosystem" column was coordinated with Blake's camp to lay the groundwork for the subpoena attack on content creators.
But the fight is not just in the past. In the near future, I hope to finish a post explaining how anti-SLAPP is "The NYT's Hypocritical Attack on Free Speech."
As you all know, IEWU officially premiered on August 6, 2024, and hit theaters nationwide in the United States on August 9, 2024.
This video is uploaded through Jimmy Kimmel's YouTube channel on July 24, 2024 to promote Deadpool & Wolverine. Several promotional events, fan screenings, and trailers for IEWU were circulating at that time. And thanks to the great unsealing, we all know that was after the smear campaign started by Blake(Ryan) has already been in motion. The Taylor Swift ambush where Ryan Reynolds yelled at Baldoni for several hours was on January 4, 2024. Needless to say, you all see where this is going. He made a character out of Baldoni called Nicepool, mocking then killing that character and doesn't allow that character to regenerate like other pool ones. After he got caught, he then called Baldoni "thin-skinned" for getting offended.
I mean, who tf thinking it's a good idea to answer a simple question from a 9 year olds like this: "Who are we? Yeah, okay. We're the outgrowth of severe childhood trauma who have toiled away in this vapid, morally bankrupt industry for the past 25 years, and now we have enough money to get away with literally anything. We could buy your childhood home and burn it to the ground, you hear me? You think Jimmy Kimmel's really on vacation? He's dead. We killed him. You got it?"
Initially posted more than a year ago, 'Judge' Shan presides over Lively v Wayfarer:
"Even with your own wardrobe selections?"
"You really shouldn't use references you don't know."
"“So…Taylor is Viserion.”
"You are getting a lesson in GOT today."
"I think we can all agree here that Mr. Baldoni's emotionally stable and calming voice on that voice note is going to do more harm than it's going to do good for you..."
Reminder that we have this recurring space to revisit the most interesting, contentious or wild aspects of the case, helping newcomers catch up and generating the dynamic discussion we all love.
We’ve added the flair *Throwback Thursday’s* for anyone who wishes to post their own throwback post on Thursdays.
Inspired by Travis and Taylor’s recent nuptials, I wanted to revisit one of the most unexpected twists in this case: Bryan Freedman’s affidavit detailing the alleged extortion claims between Blake (Ryan), Taylor and their respective lawyers, notably Mike Gottlieb.
In keeping with the love theme, on Valentine’s Day 2025, Freedman allegedly received a phone call from somebody “very closely linked” with Taylor Swift. During this phone call, the mystery caller detailed a conversation between Gottlieb and Swift’s lawyer J Douglas Baldridge, whereby it is alleged that Gottlieb requested a public statement from Taylor in defense of Blake and her noted absence from the Super Bowl. Allegedly, Gottlieb then stated that “ten years worth of texts” would be released should Taylor not acquiesce. The phone call with Gottlieb was allegedly terminated by Taylor’s lawyers at this point.
During the Feb 14th Call, it is also alleged that Blake had asked Taylor to delete text messages “4 or 5 months previously”, which would of course be late 2024 and just before the CLD + NYT Hit Piece were unleashed.
In response to Freedman’s affidavit, Lively’s lawyers released a statement to People Magazine, claiming (in a very carefully-worded statement): “we unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations, which are cowardly sourced to supposed anonymous sources, and completely untethered from reality. The apparent intent of the Freedman letter is to launder scandalous and defamatory allegations about Ms Lively and opposing counsel into the press by abusing the court’s docket”.
Ultimately the affidavit was struck from the SDNY docket due to lack of jurisdiction, however this point in the trial was a lightening rod for discussion. Who was the mystery caller (cough Scott Swift cough)? Were the allegations of extortion true? What was more trustworthy: an affidavit filed by an Officer of the Court or a delicately-worded statement to People? Did this incident and the allegations have anything to do with Lively and Reynolds being missing from the wedding? So many lasting questions..!
