Ryan Reynolds CRASHES OUT: ACCUSED of DESTROYING Blake Lively’s CAREER in SHOCKING UNSEALED EVIDENCE

Ryan Reynolds CRASHES OUT: ACCUSED of DESTROYING Blake Lively’s CAREER in SHOCKING UNSEALED EVIDENCE

I think for me just on a personal level is people feel like they know me as that character personally. And yes, I lived in Manhattan and I did not do anything to help myself. I would take home wardrobe. I would date my person I’m dating wardrobe. I would date my person I’m dating on the movie who I feel like even when I give interviews and I’m making some ridiculous joke, um, they print it and sort of print it as if like some elitist circle was saying it because I’m known for being this upper east side girl that would never say something like that. Hi besties. Welcome back to my channel. Maximum Effort Productions. Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Leslie Sloan, Sony, and the like are now facing accusations that they collectively are what ruined Blake Lively’s reputation. And Ryan Reynolds seems desperate to cover up his culpability in this case along with covering up his wife’s culpability, his company’s culpability. and he’s also trying to protect their publicist because this panicked motion for spoilation is a effort to bury the facts of what Ryan and Blake and Leslie did and deny Wayfair an opportunity to defend themselves. And I would qualify this motion for spoilation on the signal chats as a panicked effort to bury the chaos and the conflict that Ryan Reynolds created on the set. So Blake Lively filed this motion for spoilation where she’s trying to claim that Wayfair deleted signal messages and these autodelete messages would have proven that there was a digital campaign against her. So Blake because she claims that Jed Wallace, who’s not a defendant anymore and she’s not suing him anywhere, orchestrated a smear campaign in no less than two days and turned the entire internet against her in no less than two days. somehow uh thinks that what’s she’s provided to the court will help her and it actually think I think makes her look worse. So Blake’s trying to say they deleted messages, right? They used Signal to implement this untraceable dig digital campaign. The problem is is that Jed didn’t get on board until like the 9th and the negative publicity had already started by then. And on top of that, she only cited like an influx of like a spike in negative press within 2 days of him coming on set coming on board, which would be nearly impossible for him to manipulate social media in two days, right? So Blake wants the court to throw out their allegation, their defense. She she wants the court to say, “Listen, they deleted these EV this evidence. here’s all our proof that they deleted this evidence. And so they don’t get to tell the court that they didn’t have this campaign. So, not only do I want you to uh sanction them and make them pay, I don’t want you to let them have a defense. Period. She’s already tried this with Jamie Heath with the birth video, right? And with the birth video, the judge said no. He said no. He was like, “No, he can turn over the birth video, but he gets to defend himself because that’s a ridiculous like severe sanction and there’s way less severe sanctions here.” So, the concept that they wouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves, I don’t think the judge is going to go with. But what I think is ironic is that in all of these filings that she’s put onto the docket, she’s exposing Wayfair’s defense to a degree that I don’t think most of us have seen yet. And because Ryan Reynolds and his company along with Leslie Sloan are all over this, it’s obvious they want this to be buried so that they are not exposed for what they’ve done. They don’t want anyone in court to accuse them of doing this. And so they’re trying to get the judge to not allow Wayfair to defend themselves so that Ryan’s bad deeds are hidden from the public. And so she wants them, Wayfair, to defend their uh their defenses, right? So she’s asking them to answer to their affirmative defenses and answer to the defenses they plan to use in court. Okay? And she wants in interrogatory number seven, this is answered by Justin Boni. And they basically copied and paste these from each person and they they tweaked them a little bit because there’s ones for Jamie Heath, there’s ones for Jen Ael, there’s ones for Melissa Nathan. And so there’s been multiple sets of these that have been released, but Justin’s I’m going to just use because he’s so front and center to these allegations. Okay. So they say she says, “Identify in reasonable detail all factual and legal basis for your contention that the criticism against Miss Lively on social media during and after August 24 was entirely organic.” Okay. So they they did some objections around the the words that they used, but they said this was the answer. Colleen Hoover’s highly successful novel It Ends With Us, Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds, and the film It Ends With Us, the film have all been the subject of extraordinary public interest. Although negative coverage of Lively began with news of her casting and continued due to paparazzi photographs of her character’s wardrobe chosen by Lively herself, rumors of discord between Responding Party, the film’s lead actor and director, and Lively on the set heightened social media interest and somewhat prior to August 24, driven in large measure by Lively and certain cast members mass unfollowing of responding party on social media and responding party’s conspicuous absent from the film’s marketing and publicity events as well as gossip regarding Lively’s efforts to rest creative control of the film from responding party Heath and Wayfair Studios. In response to the public interest, which was all around this film, the ME media began to report on one, a poorly conceived and tonedeaf marketing campaign for the film spearheaded by Lively Coordination with Maximum Effort Productions, Inc. and its principal, Ryan Reynolds. Two, Lively’s promotion of a film about domestic violence with her hair care and alcohol brands. Three, Lively’s Alcohol Brands sponsorship of an official film promotional event and decision to name a signature cocktail after the film’s male lead, a domestic abuser. Four, her conspicuous refusal to take photos or do press with Responding Party and her exclusion of Responding Party from promotional appearances, international premieres, panel appearances, and screenings. Lively’s campaign to alienate the film’s cast and crew from Responding Party, including the orchestration of the mass unfollowing of Responding Party social media accounts. Lively’s pointed failure to meaningfully engage with the film’s serious subject matter with emphasis of levity in her promotional appearances, interviews, and social media and her myriad of bizarre or off-putting public appearances and interviews by leading up to the film’s release. She further fueled her negative press by feeding information to the New York Times and other media outlets in advance of the filing of her complaint, which she provided along with inflammatory text messages to the New York Times well prior to the complaint’s filing. And then criticism further escalated when a litigation commenced following her multi-month coordination with the New York Times to launder stolen private communications and pedal a false narrative in order to in responding party’s view resuscitate her tarnished public image at Wayfair’s expense. Through the New York Times article, she stirred up significant public interest in her allegations against the Wayfair parties and her strategy backfired when the factual basis for her allegations started to unravel and the real story emerged, painting a highly negative picture of Lively and her cohorts. That negative public image has only been heightened by the unrelenting public relations tactics of her legal team, which has cynically exploited and thereby diluted the language of domestic viable survivorship, Darvo, and engaged in concerted abuse of subpoena power to intimidate in internet influ influencers and chill public criticism of Lively. It’s like they put every single thing together and they just like tied a little bow around it. When there’s so many different things that occurred and she wants to claim that it’s all a result of Wayfair, then how does she explain the tactics that her legal team has used publicly in this lawsuit? Right? And how does she explain the perpetued smear campaign that she continues to this day on Justin Baldoni through her legal team and her representatives and through the court? Right? If she wanted to rehab her reputation, a reasonable attorney would not have advised to file this lawsuit because all it’s done is exposed the underlying behavior that occurred on the set that she engaged in along with her husband that created a hostile environment for other people. You have to consider that until Lively came into this film, they didn’t have problems. They weren’t dealing with conflicts. they weren’t fighting. It was once she was hired that everything changed. The common denominator is Blake was the one that created the hostility on the set. And I think it’s important to note that they make a point of saying that the number one the number one reason that she received backlash was because she and her husband conceived of a marketing strategy that was not wellreceived by the public. Ryan’s company, Maximum Effort Productions, is who created this film, the film marketing, right? And so Ryan’s marketing company and his film production company is really the one here that’s being blamed. It was their idea to make the content that they made. It was their idea to put together a five-minute video where Ryan plays a jealous husband to Brandon Slenar Atlas and acts like in real life Brandon has a thing for his wife. This is not There was so much backlash with that video because it felt like to viewers like you’re actually Ryan acting like an abusive husband here and leaning into the themes of this film by with your jealousy. It’s It didn’t make sense then. It doesn’t make sense now. And it’s a character, a love interest in a film. It’s not a real They weren’t even love interests in the film. There was no kissing between the two of them, right? So, there was no reason for that that that skit to be made. The other part that they discuss here is about her unclean hands, right? So, this was something many of you wanted to know is what do they mean by her unclean hands? They say that she’s participated in wrongful conduct of the same kind she accuses the Wayfair defendants of committing, namely a smear campaign targeting responding parties professional and personal reputation and Wayfair. She created the disputes the hostility and the animus of the set alienated the cast and crew against the responding party sidelined responding party from the production. refused to treat responding party or his religious beliefs with respect and orchestrated and is still pursuing a smear campaign to manipulate media and public sentiment against the responding party. Lively also showed extreme disrespect and dismissiveness against victims of sexual violence and abuse by downplaying the film’s anti-domemestic violence theme, tying her own products, including an alcohol business, into her marketing, and focusing on levity in the promotion of the film while ignoring the film’s serious message about domestic violence. Notwithstanding complaints about the Wayfair party’s purported coordination with the press, it was lively through a shell company who filed a sham lawsuit to launder stolen communications and share them spliced and stripped of contact context with the press. So that’s where the unclean hands comes in. She’s the one they’re saying she’s the one that creates the hostility. She’s the one that alienates everyone from him. She’s the one that acts disrespectfully on the press tour. She’s the one that tries to dismiss the serious themes of this film, which thus created the backlash. And then most importantly, she used a sham action banzan to launder stolen evidence from Jennel’s phone to give to the New York Times before she even filed a lawsuit in court. Another one is she wants them to say, “How is it that I haven’t mitigated the damage to my to my reputation?” And their response is that she’s failed to repair her own reputation because she’s the one that caused her reputation to be damaged, right? But she’s the one that says that she’s turning down other acting and directing opportunities and public appearances. Not that these are getting cancelled, but she’s turning them down. And then she’s acknowledging that she declines to work on projects at the same time as her husband to avoid being apart from one another, limiting opportunities available to her. You know, it’s when you have two working actors in a family, it would be no different than having like two mis two musicians or two people that are going to have to go on a set away from home for long periods of time. If both of you are doing that, part of your relationship means and accepts that you can’t be together all the time. There’s going to be lengths of time where you’ll be separated due to work. Ryan has decided that Blake can never be away from him because he’s a jealous monster and he hated when his wife Scarlet was away. And so he believes that he needs to be with her or it will kill their relationship. Mostly because, you know, Blake has a propensity to fall in love with the guys that she’s on on the set with, you know, it’s like Pen Badgely. Apparently, she developed a thing for uh um Ben Affleck on The Town. You know, she’s been linked to all these different guys that she’s done movies with and had feelings for. And then obviously, she met Ryan on the set of Green Lantern. So, he doesn’t trust her. So, because of that, they’re saying she can’t mitigate. But then also they said she further harmed her reputation since August 24 by her tonedeaf cross-promotional efforts which created an association between her hair care and liquor brands and domestic violence. Making provably false claims about Wayfair and exploiting the language of me too in a manner that has undermined her credibility with the public. her abusive legal tactics, including the initiation of a sham action through a shell company to launder stolen communication, as well as scorched earth legal campaigns to intimidate content creators and chill online criticism of Lively and her exploitation of power and influence to coordinate the publication of a one-sided New York Times hit piece. Blake’s team also wants to know who Wayfair claims is the cause of Blake’s, you know, reputational damage. And they they their answer was Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Maximum Effort, Leslie Sloan, Vision PR, Stephanie Jones, Jones Works, and Sony. Unbelievable. And then this is bananas, but Blake wants them to show proof that she did a smear cam campaign against him. and like what’s your what’s your legal basis for your contention that she planned and implemented a smear campaign against you? It’s kind of weird that this is coming up because or Justin’s lawsuit against her has been dismissed, right? if they are fearful that he’s going to try to revive those claims with a an appeal, he would if he’s going to appeal for the New York Times, he has until November 30th, I think, because they already filed a notice in his case for the final judgment that he has until November 30th to file a notice of appeal. I don’t know if he will, but anyway. Um, as far as like the smear campaign, they say that a lot of this is the stuff that you already know, the the mass unfollowing, the interviews, the pre-promotional activities, refusing to allow photos, attempting to ban him from the premiere, refusing to say his Justin Balnon’s name in pre and postrelease publicity, causing the removal of the party’s name, his name from marketing materials, planting through her publicist negative stories about him, to the press, coordinating a hit piece with the New York Times over the span of multiple months, accusing him and Heath of sexual harassment and others of orchestrating retaliatory campaigns against her, releasing otherwise confidential CRD documents for the purpose of causing m maximum reputational damage to the Wayfair parties, releasing inflammatory statements through her legal team regarding the Wayfair parties, including accusing them of Darvo. taken alto together responding party believes that these actions constitute a smear campaign. And you know what I’ve noticed is that a lot of the documents and the motions that we’ve seen Blake Lively file on the docket where she’s like need to sanction um Ryan Freriedman for his abusive legal strategies. Well, behind the scenes for months, this is what Wayfair has been accusing her of doing. So, it’s like it’s like they know it’s going to come out and so they are going to try to get ahead of it so that it would confuse all of us that it’s no no um they’re the ones that are doing it, not me. Not me. Why? WFair is doing it, not me. Okay? Like a lot of what I’m seeing now is what I’ve been telling you guys for months. It’s that they have known for months the defenses that Wayfair has. They know what they’re working with. They Blake knows that she wasn’t smeared by them. She knows and she knows sexual harassment didn’t happen and so she’s using what they say and then she’s accusing them of doing it to her. So she’s the one that’s daroing them and then she’s filing these motions like for spoilation and she’s filing these motions for sanctions and motions to compel and and she’s putting it out first. And a lot of times in legal cases like this, especially with abusive people that abuse the legal system, is they jump first to the court and they identify the issue first to the judge to confuse the judge, right? So that when it’s brought up then by the the defendant or the person that brought up the issue to begin with, the judge will think it’s well, both parties are engaging in it, right? So Blake’s going to say, “I found out that this is what they think about me. Uh, I found out that they think I’m using abusive legal tactics, so I’m going to accuse them of using abusive legal tactics. Think of Vanzan, right? That’s a very abusive legal tactic. So immediately when that gets exposed, then her team uh is go moves to subpoena, you know, the firm for Brian Freriedman and then accuses Brian Freriedman of abusing her in the public. It’s a way to like confuse the judge, manipulate the public, switch the PR, and she’s the one that’s in my opinion really engaging in Darvo here. And then when it comes to why she is so heavily focused on like blaming street relations, they claim that because she faced such heavy criticism in August that she needed someone to deflect, right? So she needed to find a scapegoat that wasn’t her that could make it so that like what you saw and gaslight us isn’t what happened. And so in her in their response they say that she has attempted to vilify Wayfair Jed and Street to resuscitate her public image image. And they say the campaign started in August 24 when her publicist started planting negative stories about Belon, including that he had fat shamed her and belonged to a cult. Lively then worked in secret with Wayfares and Responding Party’s former relationship firm Jones work and Stephanie Jones to launder private stolen communications, splicing and stripping them of context to support a factually false narrative that Lively’s reputational challenge were a function not of her own missteps, but ofstead of a smear campaign orchestrated by the responding parties in Wayfair in retaliation for purported allegations of sexual misconduct. And then Lively and her agents fed these flat false allegations to the New York Times who then ultimately put the article out. And then the day before this happens, she requested a right to sue notice from the CRD and attached a resuscitation of purported factual allegations. Her attachment was procedurally unnecessary and would have been confidential had she not leaked it to the New York Times for publication. So, one of the issues that Wayfair has had this whole time with the reliance on the CRD is that in California, documents like the CRD are considered confidential. And there are laws when it comes to publication in California that prohibit the press from reporting on confidential documents, right? And so, unless it’s in the public sphere, we don’t have that right. But in New York, they have the right to report on confidential documents. It’s just it’s very wild to me that there’s such a difference in laws between states. But it’s another reason why she went to the New York Times because in New York they have these like lax laws when it comes to not only subpoenas, but also to the press’s right to report. Another one of the defenses is that they are they’ve fully performed and discharged any alleged obligation and any alleged legal duties because everything had been completed. And so their defense here is one of their affirmative defense here is that they fully performed the applicable contracts including without limitation the actor loan out agreement, the nudity writer and the protection side letter. responding parties also fully complied with all obligations created by the California Fair Employment Housing Act, Title 7 and related statutes. And then they also want to know why Lively consented consented um to her uh like what what she was involved in and and so she can’t blame them because she consented to being a part of this. And so what they said is this interrogatory does not specify instances with respect to which Lively contends she did not provide consent based on the evidence and testimony in this case. However, Lively consented to, among other things, playing the role she was cast for, including the shooting of intimate scenes, accepting changes to the script, and some degree of improvisation during filming, Jaime Heath’s entry into her trailer on occasion described in the second amended complaint, and the use of the term sexy to describe her character’s wardrobe. It’s incredible that they kept all of this and this is what she filed in court because the only part in here that’s relevant to the spoilation here is that the very last one is who did you communicate with on signal during the digital campaign. So she literally filed her lawyers filed all of that into court that that’s not even re relevant to the spoilation here, right? But Lively is trying to rope in the signal as the reason for why they shouldn’t be able to defend themselves. So when you think of it this way, she’s saying they don’t get to say that there wasn’t a digital campaign because they deleted evidence. Well, why are they saying that? Because when you look at their actual defenses, what would be at trial would be incredibly damning to Blake Lively, to Ryan Reynolds, to Maximum Effort, to Leslie Sloan, to Sony, to Jones Works, and to Vision PR. And so they’re trying to block them from their defense. And it’s not even that they didn’t orchestrate a digital campaign. It’s the defense that Blake’s actions and the actions of Ryan and Maximum Effort and Leslie Sloan and Jones Works and Sony were the factors that contributed to the reputational demise. So instead, to not allow them to bring this to court, they’re trying to gaslight the judge and say, “Well, there might have been a couple text messages on Signal that were deleted and so therefore they don’t get to bring in all of this other stuff.” This is Ryan, in my opinion, trying to protect himself and his company from getting exposed to being the catalyst for his wife’s demise. Because it was Ryan’s influence and his need to control and Blake’s own need to control that contributed to this. and then their very toxic relationship between the two of them and the jealousy that arose that has been man manifesting in this marriage for years uh that contributed to the hostility and the chaos that has ensued since and this scorched earth tactic is I think less about Blake Lively protect protecting herself but Ryan trying to prove that it wasn’t Maximum effort’s fault because if Ryan’s brand fails Blake and Ryan fail because Blake’s career has never been as successful as Ryan. Blake’s net worth is nowhere near Ryan’s net worth even though they’re married. But if you think of like in terms of like what he makes for his films and um what he has made from projects and what he gets paid as salary to star in movies, he’s paid so much more than Blake. So, it’s interesting to see now why they’re trying so hard to hide this, right? because the defense here is so robust. And so in order for them to try to get rid of these defenses, they’re trying to say, “Well, you deleted evidence, so they shouldn’t be allowed to use these defenses.” And that’s insanity, and I don’t see the judge buying it. So, what are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments below. Make sure to give this video a thumbs up. Make sure to subscribe to my channel if you haven’t subscribed. And uh click the bell so you never miss a video. You guys, I would love to see 10,000 likes on this video. Please, 10,000. Help us in the algorithm. All right. Bye, besties.

#itendswithus #ryanreynolds #maximumeffort #justinbaldoni

Ryan Reynolds is in hot water. Newly Unsealed evidence reveals the role he played in sabotaging Blake Lively’s career. The documents also expose a plot to cover up this evidence and deny Justin Baldoni the right to defend himself.

Support the Channel By Becoming a Member:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqW9ZAW0ZNqfWo9PZ3OX4Fg/join

Follow Katie Joy on Social Media:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/withoutacrystalball/

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/withoutacrystalball/

Disclaimer:

Without a Crystal Ball is a commentary channel. The views expressed by Katie Joy are her opinions and should not be considered fact. Katie Joy discusses trending topics, current events, reality tv & More. This channel is for your entertainment. Please make sure you conduct your own research on any topics to verify any information.

All Clips Obtained through TLC YouTube & Used under Fair Use:

The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act states:

“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”
THIS VIDEO AND OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL IN GENERAL MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH WE BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.