IT’S OVER! Blake Lively Just SABOTAGED Her Own Case

IT’S OVER! Blake Lively Just SABOTAGED Her Own Case

In a time where the most valuable currency seems to be anger, it feels like an act of defiance to commune and celebrate all the good that is alive in the world. And the many here tonight who either challenge the systems andor who show us that magic exists in Earth in their gifts, talents, bravery, art, and life. So tonight, I applaud each of you. [Music] Hey besties. Blake Lively got exactly what she wanted. She filed a document in court and in this document she was seeking punitive damages and trouble damages and millions of dollars from Justin Baldoni. This is the third time she has sought monetary damages from Justin Baldoni or tried to silence the speech of the Wayfair parties through sanctions. Leslie Sloan has filed two motions and her husband has filed a motion. That is six motions trying to get millions of dollars from Wayfair. And her latest motion was a pure publicity PR stunt. And do you want to know why I know it’s a PR stunt? If you even thought for a moment that her 30page document of rambling art arguments that have been made numerous times and have been some of these arguments have even been admonished by the judge. She decided that she was going to introduce an anonymous person who claims to have had negative interactions with Justin Baldoni. And it’s being done to try to paint him as an intolerable person and as a man that has so many issues on sets that him being excluded from sets and from marketing promotions is totally normal. It’s just standard protocol with Justin Baldon. I don’t know Justin Baldoni from anyone else. I don’t know Blake Wively from anyone else. I don’t know if Justin Baldoni is the worst person in the world. I don’t know if Blake Wively is the worst person in the world. But what I do know is that when one party continues to hammer away at another party and they do it in such a public fashion and every time they file something, they’re looking for a headline to smear the person they’re suing. It almost starts to seem like the case that they have is weak. And the reason I say this is because now they’re trying to attach this unnamed person and they have had this unnamed person file a redacted affidavit and there is no reason why a sworn declaration under the penalty of perjury should be redacted in a court. But what nobody is actually talking about, I don’t think I’ve heard, at least I haven’t seen, is that Blake Lively is using a declaration by an anonymous person discussing a conversation that Steve Sarowitz allegedly had. This is triple hearsay at this point. Someone else heard Steve Sorrow said this and then that was told to Blake and then Blake told that to her attorneys. I mean, they mocked Mr. Freriedman for triple hearsay when it came to Taylor Swift regardless in her mo in her motion for all of these damages. She brings up this conversation that Steve allegedly had at the premiere, right? And she uses this as sort of a benchmark to one introduce this declaration and then to two claim that this is evidence that they began plotting the retaliation against her. So it says the Wayfair parties openly and discussed the intent to retaliate against Miss Lively. Before and during this litigation, the Wayfair parties have repeatedly made clear their intent to retaliate against Miss Lively, including by weaponizing the legal system. Filing a lawsuit against someone is not retaliation. By the way, as Miss Lively alleged in the SACE, that plan has backed by virtually unlimited resources. Wayfair’s co-founder and co-chairman and leading financeier is a multi-billionaire, Steve Sarowitz, who dulged to a witness at the film’s New York premiere on August 6th, 2024, that he was prepared to spend $100 million to ruin the lives of Miss Lively and her family. That was not the only time he made such a threat. Later in August 2024, even though the film had turned out very well and the Wayfair had made a lot of money, Sarowitz confessed to another witness, an individual who was working with Wayfair on an unrelated project, that if Miss Lively or Mr. Reynolds ever cross the line ever, then I will go after them. He declared, “I will protect the studio like Israel protected itself from Hamas. There were 39,000 dead bodies. There will be two dead bodies when I’m done. Minimum.” And then this expands on the quote. This is an amazing quote that someone could quote word for word. I wonder if they have this on audio record. Not dead, but you’re dead to me. Oh, so she they don’t he doesn’t actually mean to cause physical harm. So that’s kind of dead, but dead to a lot of people. If they ever get to that point, then I’ll make it worth their while because I’m going to spend a lot of money to make sure the studio is protected. Okay. So, what he is saying is that he’s willing to spend a lot of money to defend the studio against any sort of legal threats that might come up or lawsuits that may occur. And it is not a threat or a conspiracy for someone that has already been threatened to be sued by Blake multiple times to say that they’re willing to defend themselves. Okay. They then include a declaration of a random person who they don’t say who it is or why they’re adding this. And after Miss Lively brought suit here, the Wayfair parties through their attorney, Brian Freriedman, reconfirmed their intent to sue Miss Lively and others into oblivion. Thus, the court need look no further than the Wayfair party’s own statements to confirm their intent to retaliate against Miss Lively for reporting sexual harassment and retaliation, including by f filing their now dismissed claims. Okay, so there’s a few problems here. One, I don’t know who this person is or why they’re being added. two, what he’s reporting as the quote has already been discounted by the judge, and we’ll get there in a second. And three, this issue is introducing someone that has nothing to do with the situation, was not even on the set with them, and is adding claims that have nothing to do with the film. And four, filing a lawsuit is not retaliation. She is trying to claim that the Wayfair parties deciding to counter Sue is an act of retaliation for her speaking up. It’s fundamentally about silencing free speech. Now, at the very bottom, it says in unsealed portions of her deposition transcripts filed in court, she testified that she not only felt that the lawsuit and Mr. Freeman’s conduct was retaliatory, but that Steve Sarowitz’s dead body threat on the heels of his pledge to spend $100 million left her concerned for her physical safety. He said he was not going to kill them. The person also had concerns with Mr. Baldoni, who they found to be verbally abusive, which resulted in him not being allowed on the set of the other project or involved in the marketing or publicity. So, an unnamed person on an unnamed set that has nothing to do with It Ends With Us had problems with Justin and he it has nothing to do with sexual harassment. Okay. So, let’s talk about the Steve Sarowitz conversation. In Judge Lyman’s ruling and his order on the motion to dismiss for Jed Wallace, he says, “The amended complaint alleges that Sorrowitz threatened to ruin the lives of Miss Lively and her family while attending the film’s premiere.” He stated to a witness at the event that he was prepared to spend $und00 million to ruin the lives of her Lively and her family. However, Lively has not alleged facts showing that this was an overt act performed by any conspirator for the purpose of accomplishing the objectives of the conspiracy. A conversation may constitute an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy, but only if it tends to carry out the object of a conspiracy. Mere conversations between two co-conspirators about a conspiracy does not suffice here. There’s nothing to suggest an inference that Sarowitz was attempting to recruit a co-conspirator trying to cause lively distress or taking any other action in furtherance of a conspiracy. He simply stated to an unidentified witness that he was prepared to spend money to harm Lively. This statement describes the existence of a conspiracy, but there’s no basis to infer it was intended to advance the conspiracy. So now what she’s trying to do is trying to link that comment to comments that, oh well, that conspiracy actually was that he was going to retaliate with me by filing a lawsuit. So really what her new 47.1 sanctions is all about is trying to make it so that the actual retaliation that occurred wasn’t a smear campaign. It wasn’t a digital campaign that was clandestine. No, now it’s the lawsuit. Now it’s the lawsuit that he already said that Steve Sarowitz making this comment doesn’t m mean anything other than he said these anything. Okay. So, what is the actual declaration that she’s putting out into the space? So, this is what it says. It’s a declaration blacked out of a person blacked out. I’m over the age of 18, of sound mind, and otherwise competent to make this declaration. The evidence set out is based upon my personal knowledge. A blacked out sentence about Justin Baldon, the founder of Wayfair. Blacked out sentence. I had repeated negative interactions with Mr. Mr. Baldoni and his associates, including verbal abuse by Mr. Baldoni. Blacked out sentence. Mr. Baldoni not be permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences. Blacked out sentence. Blacked out sentence. Blacked out sentence. I requested that he not be involved in marketing public laations efforts. Blacked out. Blacked out. I was contacted by the assistant of Steve Sarowitz, the co-founder and chairman of Wayfair, to schedule a time for me and Mr. Sarowitz to speak. Mr. Sarowits assistant did not identify a topic for the meeting. Blacked out, blacked out, blacked out, a true and correct copy of blacked out produced in discovery as BL blah blah blah blah blah is being submitted with this declaration in exhibit one. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Blacked out. Blacked out. So right now they have asked for this to be sealed. It says nothing other than repeated negative interactions including verbal abuse with no specifics of what was possibly said, who the person is, what the project is. And how does this what does this have to do with 47.1? Nothing. So, this is how you know that this declaration was nothing other than for PR because after she filed this, they leaked a story to TMZ. And TMZ runs an exclusive and they say Blake Lively, a new witness uh has claimed the verbal abuse by Dustin Baldon. So, she got the headline she wanted. Justin accused of another person of verbal abuse or harassment much like what happened with Isabella Ferrer accusing him of harassing her over a subpoena. I have no idea who this person is for. It could be Ryan for all I know. I have no clue. They don’t say what the project is. They don’t say who it is. And it’s all blacked out. So, it’s left up to the imagination. But according to TMZ, this person would testify. Well, there’s a problem with that. Huge. First of all, the judge and a motion to compel stated that the only other evidence of issues on a production or a set that could be used for HR complaints would have to be directly related to sexual harassment. It has to be the same as what she is being what she’s accusing him of. So verbal abuse and negative interactions doesn’t equate to sexual harassment. And verbal abuse is obtuse and it can be subjective. What one person thinks is verbal abuse is another person calling it hard bargaining. I don’t know who was quote unquote verbally abused here, right? I don’t All I know is that everyone’s making guesses. It’s not Blake because Blake wouldn’t sign her own declaration. It’s supposedly supposed to be on a different effort. It’s not her because they’re claiming it’s not her. It’s someone else. Okay. But in court, in federal court, under federal rule of evidence 404b, you cannot introduce evidence of someone’s prior bad acts just to show that they have a bad character and therefore must have done it again. So, they can’t testify that just because they had a bad experience with Justin Baldon that it’s relevant to this case. Courts generally will not allow this. It’s excluded because it’s called propensity evidence. It’s unfairly prejuditial. A jury might convict or rule against someone for being a bad person rather than because the plaintiff proved their case. It confuses the issue and it the trial becomes about what happened to someone else, not what happened in the lawsuit. And it wastes the time because every other bad act would cause a mini trial. This is why in federal court, previous convictions are often not allowed. This is why in federal court Josh Duggar’s prosecution wasn’t allowed to say that he was a porn addict because it was a bad act. They used the exact same exclusion. And because she redacted it and because we don’t know what it is, it’s almost obviously propensity evidence, meaning that this person will not be able to testify. It has nothing to do with her claims and it’s only being used for PR. And they’re putting this out to the public to TMZ to try to sway the audience and public opinion, which is ironic given that she’s accused the jud accused Brian Freriedman of trying to sway the jury pool and tamper it. And what’s even worse is that if it’s propensity evidence and it has nothing to do with sexual harassment and it’s not going to be allowed, the the the headline is just a headline. It’s just there to inflame, to get people attention, to get people mad at him. I don’t know what they’re going to do with this. They could have it struck. They could ask to for it to be thrown out to be to have them disregard it. I don’t know how Wayfair is going to respond. But all this was done was to sway public opinion. It’s just stupid. And it’s just proving like if you really have a strong case, Blake, you don’t do stuff like this. If you really cared about your case and you felt like you could win, you could sit on the facts of the case. you wouldn’t need to keep like bringing random things in like this and leak it to TMZ so that you can prove that Justin’s a bad guy. Right now, Wayfair has been so quiet and has said nothing about anything for such a long time that the more she does this in the public and the more she speaks to the press and has all of these leaks happen, it just the worse it looks for her. And she’s I think Wayfair is just letting her hang herself at this point. But all this is is a media play. It’s not going to go anywhere and the judge is not going to give her any money for this. It’s just all another power play. The lengths that they’re going to dig into discovery to get conversations between a father and a daughter that talking that’s talking about a dog, right? and whether or not Melissa Nathan is going to hire someone as an attorney for a lawsuit just to prove their point by digging in so far into these people’s lives that are not parties to the lawsuit. It’s, you know, and then you add this along with this the five other motions where they’re seeking money. And then you also add in that they referenced Jame Vuk James Booka’s declaration for a second time, proving that they’re trying to use this as proof the same way that Leslie Sloan tried to use as proof that they were malicious and had ill intent. You don’t need to just litter the docket with PR if you have a winning case. You can just honestly stand on the facts. And at this point, she doesn’t have facts because her retaliation claims keep changing from a clandestine smear campaign to 107 creators being the ones behind it to now the actual lawsuit is the retaliation. And that’s a really far stretch and it’s usually not going to hold up weight because again it has to do with directly related to her speaking out against claims and doing a protected activity. Right now we don’t even think this is an activity that’s protected and two they have a right to defend themselves and they’re going to really long great lengths to try to silence everyone but then she gets to speak about everything and then leak things to TMZ. This is just really bad for her. It’s exposing how bad her case is. And honestly, it surprises me that she has any supporters left. And this is why I continue to not support her because so far, nothing has proven to me that she has a case. I don’t know anything about Justin. I’m not Justin’s BFF. But I do know that it as far as his side goes, they’re not acting like they’re losing right now. It’s Blake that Blake is. So, everything’s blown up and she exposes herself. Tell me what your thoughts are 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 click the bell so you never miss a video. Thanks so much for watching. Bye, besties.

#ItEndsWithUs #BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni

Blake Lively’s latest stunt proves more than anything how weak her case really is. Instead of presenting evidence, she’s filing a bogus affidavit that has nothing to do with her claims — and then running to the media to spin the story. If her case were strong, she wouldn’t need to keep playing the PR game.

In this video, we break down exactly why this move looks so desperate, why it won’t help her case, and how it could end up hurting her even more in the long run.

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.