← Ahead of the Curve with Coco Mocoe
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Coco Moco
By the end of this episode of Ahead of the Curve with Kokomoko, I hope to open your mind just a little bit to question the status quo and what is the popular sentiment online. Because usually what is immediately popular in a highly contested situation is often the sentiment that ages the worst. Not always, but time and time again, this is how the dust settles. It is so enticing to be a creator who sides with Justin Baldoni. As we see it is what the algorithm is pushing and what people are following. Questioning his new lawsuit leads to aggressive suppression and massive amounts of hate comment and flagging. If you read two of the first lawsuits filed in this case, you would see that his team, the same team who have worked with Johnny Depp and Donald Trump to suppress their victims, allegedly they allegedly admitted to being able to boost videos in feeds such as on TikTok or Reddit that are pro their clients. But more scarily to me, and what we still don't have answers for is that they are able to allegedly suppress videos in the feed that question or undermine their clients or is positive about the person they are going against. And I would bet that that is what's happening if I was a betting man. That leads me to my biggest point. In this episode and every episode, everything is alleged and I always encourage you coconuts to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. My opinion can always change as new information is presented and oftentimes my opinion on topics has changed. But right now in the Baldoni versus Lively situation, my opinion on the situation has not changed. I am not a lawyer or a journalist, nor do I claim to be. I'm just nosy and I do have a background in marketing and public relations. So this case has really fascinated me, despite my perspective being one of the Internet and the way algorithms and attention operate. I do want to preface that this case is much more than PR and optics. I know that ruffled some feathers when I said it last time, but I still stand true in what I said and I refuse to get bullied or change my stance. This is bigger than PR and shame on anyone who says otherwise, even people I respect multiple people. This is a case involving serious allegations on both sides that will ruin both of their lives for the foreseeable future. I would like to think that PR and marketing what I do, that we have a really important job and we do, but some jobs and topics are a little more serious than what we do. Of course what we do is important, but we are not the be all end all and that is okay. I highlighted and annotated Justin Baldoni's new 179 page lawsuit which you can skim through for free on my sub stack so I want anyone to be able to read it. I didn't want to put it behind a paywall. Although the public filing is also completely free to anyone who wants to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, I greatly encourage you to do so. Sometimes I get things wrong and that is okay. This is an ever changing story and new information constantly is coming out. I personally tried really hard not to consume much media about this lawsuit online, the new one that he just filed, although that has been very hard. But I will like to link out to a thread I saw on threads from someone named Katya who did a really great deep dive into the lawsuit. And then I also want to link out a podcast episode that came out before Baldoni's lawsuit came out by someone named Matt Bernstein and his episode was called Blake Lively and the Amber Heard Effect. I also went on Heather McDonald's podcast juicy scoop last week to talk about this and more so to those of you guys juicy Scoopers that are listening to my podcast that came here from there, thank you so much for coming over. I really loved reading all the DMS and comments that I got from you guys. You can watch my deep dives into Blake Lively and Stephanie Jones lawsuits on my channel on YouTube. But this is going to be my deep dive into Justin Baldoni's. Before reading his lawsuit, I was eager to have a few questions answered which he didn't answer in the New York Times lawsuit. So I was hoping that when he filed his counter lawsuit to Blake Lively that maybe they would answer. So here were my questions and at the end of this episode we'll talk about whether those questions were answered. So keep your eye on these questions as we go throughout. The first one I had was for him and his team to dive into what they meant by we can bury anyone and the use of bots. Who is the mysterious Jed Wallace guy that they texted about that is based in Austin, Texas and how they claim allegedly that he can manipulate Reddit and TikTok algorithms in their clients favor. For Baldoni and his team to acknowledge the fact that there was a direct connection between negative articles written about Lively, positive articles written about Baldoni. And this was from his publicist Melissa Nathan's sister Sarah Nathan, who is a journalist at Page Six in New York Post. Do they acknowledge that really damning connection? I would love for him to acknowledge or dispel the fact that he told Lively he could talk to her dead father. Not because it has anything to do with criminal behavior. I just think it's weird. And if any, if everyone online can talk about how weird it is that Lively was referencing Khaleesi and Dragons, I can also reference that I think it's weird that he claims he can talk to dead people. I'd love to know where that came from and why he doesn't, you know, disclaim it yet. So we'll see if he does. In this lawsuit, I'd also love for Baldoni to acknowledge or dispel the fact that the entire cast unfollowed him due to his on set behavior. Multiple of them have come out in support of Blake Lively and Sony and WME have publicly stood with Blake Lively. So if she was the problem, why did they do that? And I would love for him to provide video evidence that they claim to have that dispels Lively's case entirely, or at least parts of it. Those were some of my questions and thoughts before reading into this 179 page lawsuit, which is literally like reading a book that I hope will be answered. So you can read the full filing with highlights and annotations on my sub stack which will be linked in the show notes and in this video. For the sake of time, I'll be including the most important pages that stood out to me. I won't be including every 179 page. So the first half of this episode of Ahead of the Curve will be me breaking down important pages of the lawsuit and then the second half, which will be available on my best selling Substack, will be kind of a summary of my thoughts and how I personally believe that this is a master class in public gaslighting that so many people are falling for. And I honestly think a lot of people were eager to fall for because just of misogyny. If you want to unlock every extended episode of Ahead of the Curve podcast, you can do so@kokomoco.substack.com and I'm going to try something new. I'm going to turn off the comments on YouTube because substack was telling me about a creator who she has a popular Facebook where she talks about art history. And then she went over to Substack and she started posting the same essays from Facebook to Substack for free. So they were completely free on Facebook and on Substack. The only thing she did is she turned off the ability to comment on Facebook so you could no longer comment on her Facebook. And you could only comment on her substack if you were a paying member of her substack. And the moment she started doing that, she began making $5 million a year annually. So I'm really curious. I think that again, people want to be a part of community more than anything. And I'm, you know, with the TikTok ban and I'm wearing black because this is the last day TikTok is going to exist in America as I'm filming this. And then I have to. Honestly, I'm more sad about Capcut being gone. I have to edit this episode before midnight anyways. I'm wearing black for the funeral. Tick tock. And I'm really just pushing myself as a creator. And so that's why I'm lucky. I got on Sub Stack in like June. And their team has been so great to me. So they were telling me over lunch about the lady that makes $5 million a year. And I'm like, let me try that on my YouTube, especially because it's such a contested topic. Like, if people are gonna leave hate comment, like, a lot of people that support me are already paying or are on the free version and interact there. But if you're going to like leave hate comments about me, that's totally fine. Again, as a creator, you. You sign up to be a punching bag for the Internet and then I might as well have people pay to be a part of the community to leave hate comments. So if you want to leave your thoughts, you can do that over on my paid substack in that comment section. Thank you guys for making my substack a bestseller. It is@kokomoco substack.com and if not, if you're a free member, again, thank you for even making it this far. If you guys could let me know your thoughts in the reviews on Apple and Spotify, just keep it respectful, which you guys always do. I really appreciate that greatly. I always say if my audience is the smallest reflection of me, I feel like I did something right. Especially seeing you guys raise 75000 for three different families last week in my hometown of LA, people that I know whose house is burned down, I'm just so grateful. But yeah, so if you guys want to leave reviews on Spotify and Apple, that helps so much. And there's no right or wrong answer in this discussion. I just want to keep it respectful to everyone. And I have also not want ever run an ad on this podcast in the two years that I've had it because I don't want to take away any value, whether you guys are listening for free or paid. So if you appreciate me being one of the last podcasts standing that does not have a million ad reads for BetterHelp or HelloFresh, whatever it is, please go over to the reviews because that is a free way to help me know that you appreciate that decision and that I'm doing a good job. So thank you guys. And at the end of this episode in the extended as well, I'll get into just my thoughts on the funeral for TikTok, the TikTok ban, and why I think TikTok will never be the same even if Trump said saves it. But with all that being said, we are going to dive into this 170 page lawsuit. It's hefty and I hope my breakdown kind of makes it digestible for you guys. But again, not a lawyer, not a journalist. I'm just nosy. Thank you again. I went into this trying not to see a bunch of coverage on the Baldoni thing, his new lawsuit, but it is all over the for you page again, as we know, his team allegedly is able to push videos in the feed that are positive about him. So I'm not surprised. It's kind of all over the algorithm. But in the first sentence I say, it already starts out laughably dramatic. This is a tone that will continue throughout the whole legal filing that is not present in Lively or Jones filing. So it says this is the first sentence, you guys. The following is not a story plaintiffs ever wish to tell. That is the first sentence. Okay, so again, this is supposed to be a serious legal filing, but I will say in their defense for it being 179 pages, a win is a win. For him, at least it was entertaining to read through their tone. They were like he was tarred and feathered. Like it was just so funny. Like the way you guys have to read it. Like it's just, it's a very theatrical in a way that the other filings were not. And then I said, genuinely asking, is it illegal for someone to go to the press before filing a huge complaint? Like what Blake Lively did. Did he not do something similar with Varieties Exclusive when he sued the New York Times? Again, which I think was all just optics because the New York Times has not lost a lawsuit since 1964. He's just suing New York Times to get his story out there. And as I say, you guys, everything's alleged. My opinion. You guys get it. Do your own research. So in here he says Lively on Information and belief leaked the typically private complaint to the public, utilizing the New York Times as a conduit for her revenge. Again, like, the. The wording is very dramatic. So then I say, didn't he do this with Variety magazine? And then also they say that the was rife with lies and doctored evidence. And there's a grammatical error in the way they write evidence, which, again, I have dyslexia. Like, you guys know, I say things wrong on accident. I type things wrong. But you would think for a legal filing that they know is going to be seen by so many eyes, they would at least do, like, a spell check. But it seems that was missed. Now they say, make no mistake, these actions were deliberate. Again, lots of drama, lots of theatrics. I think his lawyer is really trying to sway public opinion over legal jargon. Mind you, I mentioned this in another episode and on the Juicy scoop, but something I find so interesting that Baldoni's fans refuse to acknowledge is that he is such a Mr. Me Too Feminist. Why did he hire a lawyer who famously settled his own case when he was accused of gang raping a minor? Was there no other Yelp lawyer near me available like, people are? Like, he wants? Like, a lawyer that can win? First of all, this lawyer has won, but also has lost huge cases. And also, like, there's a lot of great lawyers out there. Is this the only lawyer that's available? And also, he went on Megyn Kelly to get part of his story out there. I'm like, birds of a feather flock together, together, you know? Anyways, they keep bringing up Ryan Reynolds and how he yelled at him about being a sexual predator. But then I said that this is also in contrast with their original report that Reynolds only got mad at him for fat shaming. So doesn't this further prove Lively's point? Ryan Reynolds privately accused Baldoni of being a sexual predator, which would line up with Blake Lively's claims and the timeline of her claims. They talk about how when Lively faced significant public backlash and her press tour was referred to as tone deaf, which I think it was tone deaf. I'm not denying that. They say her publicist, Leslie Sloan, went so far as to propagate malicious stories portraying Baldoni as a sexual predator, a term Lively's husband, Ryan Reynolds also used when describing Baldoni. Again, the. That's not helping his case. If Ryan Reynolds privately described Justin Baldoni as a predator, I would think that aligns with the fact that he felt his wife was being harassed on set because, let's say Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds bit their tongues. They were kumbaya. Everything was great. You know, they shook hands with Baldoni on the red carpet. They sat beside him, whatever. Then Baldoni's bots would say, oh, isn't Blake Lively, you know, why would Ryan Reynolds be best friends with someone who sexually abused her? So they are doing everything that a perfect victim is supposed to do, and yet it's being weaponized against them. So it just proves that there's no such thing as a perfect victim here. And then I said the first section of this lawsuit claims that Lively did not read the book. Again, that is something if you guys listen to my podcast, Ahead of the Curve from August. I literally said that I did not think that Blake Lively read the book. And this is before I was aware of the alleged smear campaign and how sinister it actually was on set. I literally said, I do not think Lively read the book because everyone online was saying that she was going for an Oscar and she wanted to steal this movie out from under him. So I will a winner was is a win for him. I will say that I align with Baldoni in the fact that I do not think that Blake Lively read the book. And so they say here in his claim that after rereading the book, which had 150 pages to build their relationship. So he's talking about how he's reread the book. Then he says, I understand Blake's reasons for not wanting to read the book. And then they have a footnote here that says, Lively later claimed that she read the book, but text evidence shows that well into production, she had not and that she had to Google the color of her character's hair. Now, they don't include the text evidence that she had not read the book. So I'm not sure why they wouldn't include that. But you'll notice that what's coming up in a lot of this lawsuit and something I would love for the Baldoni side to maybe explain in my paid substack where you can comment, wink, wink is. So they're saying that she's very flippant and she does not care about the it ends with us story or the characters or the series tone. However, it directly disputes that. Halfway through the lawsuit, they begin saying that she cared so much about the movie and the franchise in the book that she was using her star power to override Baldoni as the director and, as they say multiple times, seize control of the film. So which is it? Did she not care enough that she didn't read the book? Or did she care so much that she bullied him into having control of the film? Those two are completely contradicting. Another thing is that they bring up the text between Baldoni and his team and how they were unjustly pulled from a personal phone. But the phone, which was Jennifer Abel, the woman who was fired from a PR firm, she was using and having these sensitive conversations on a work phone. And that phone was a company phone that was taken from her upon her being fired on August 21st. So they're saying that these texts were unjustly pulled. However, if it is a company phone, she should have been aware that these texts would be available to her boss. And so that is something I would love for them to dive into here. They say that Sloan boasted to Melissa Nathan, the girl that was running the smear campaign. Allegedly, Sloan is Blake Lively's publicist. We go over this in the Stephanie Jones lawsuit that I broke down, but that she had seen Melissa Nathan's text and that Nathan would soon be sued. Part of their defense is the stress caused to Baldoni and Jamie Heath, his co producer, claiming that Reynolds and Lively purposely dropped the lawsuit while the LA fires were ravaging the city. But this is completely untrue. Her lawsuit was filed weeks before the fires even started. They even say Lively was sitting in her New York penthouse while the defendants were gathering their kids in their go bags and monitoring evacuation. That's literally not true. Her loss out. Her lawsuit came out two weeks before the fires began. And that's coming from someone who is an LA native who's like, boots on the fucking ground. Volunteering, donating, doing what I can. That makes no sense why they would bring this up in the lawsuit. They have not filed any more lawsuits since she dropped hers on the 21st. The complaint, which was then led by a lawsuit. They are the only ones that have been dropping lawsuits since the new year began. Baldoni side. Also, if it's true, let's say, okay, let's play ball with them. If it's true that Lively and Reynolds purposely tried to scare them by dropping a lawsuit when the fires began, how? Like, are they saying that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, like, sparked the fire? Like, why would that be their fault? Again, it's just them wanting to push a narrative on tick tock on Reddit to get the fans to rally against Baldoni. They're giving them ammunition that clearly will not hold up in court. They said two of the most powerful stars in the world deploying their annoying enormous power to steal an entire film right out of the hands of the director. So then I said, at first their argument was that she didn't read the book and she didn't care about the film. But now in the next page, they're saying that she cared about the book and film so much that she wanted to steal the movie. Again, that's a discrepancy that they don't really explain. They claim that she had a history of being difficult to work with Blake Lively. Now, this is hearsay because they don't provide any evidence to, to prove this claim. They just say, although Wayfair learned that Lively had a reputation for being difficult to work with. And then I say, do they back this up with evidence later on in the lawsuit, or is this just hearsay that ends up just being hearsay? Again, in Lively's claim, there really isn't a ton of hearsay because they have that 17 point agreement and Sony and WME have come out in support of Lively to dispel any hearsay that they were against her. So I just want to say that then I said, why would Lively want to take on more work without credit or pay? Because they acknowledge at one point that Lively asked if she could take a pass at riding the rooftop seat scene in which characters Ryle and Lily first meet, but that she wanted to rewrite this key scene but didn't need credit for that as a screenwriter. So I said, why would she secretly want to do extra work for free for a movie that she alleging to them didn't even want to be a part of in the first place? And then they bring Taylor Swift into this. I said, why bring Taylor Swift into this? What motive does she have? They say that Taylor Swift. And so they're referring to this awkward text that Blake Lively does send that is cringe about. You know, she has her dragons that defend her, which is Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift, and that Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift are two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world who are not afraid to make things difficult for him. Now, I said, why specifically would Taylor Swift want to make things difficult for him? What is her stake in this exactly? I'd love for them to explain it. I genuinely masking, I don't know what is her motive. She didn't even promote this movie. Or did they just bring up Taylor Swift's name? Because again, this is more of a PR play than a legal one. And they knew that that would get YouTube clicks that would get people talking, and that did end up working. I will say they're great at their PR play. And now I do say her long texts to him are a little overzealous. But they all happen before the sexual harassment timeline begins, according to her. Which the timeline of her bringing this to their attention would have begun 1-20-24, whereas the long texts that they provided were from April of 2023. So that would have been what, nine, eight months beforehand. They say things like, if you ever get around to watching Game of Thrones, you'll appreciate that I'm Khaleesi. Like her, I happen to have a few dragons. Again, this text was sent on April 15, 2023. So that's what, nine months before the sexual harassment allegations are brought forward. They talk a lot about a lifting scene and weight shaming, which I assume is a way to deflect from the sexual harassment claims, because the sexual harassment claims could go into criminal territory. But him saying, yeah, maybe I did fat shame her on, you know, on. Not on purpose. I had a back problem. That's a way to get people talking about something that is not criminal behavior, allegedly. And that was a tactic that his own team talked about deploying in their texts. Allegedly again, read it for yourself. Where they were saying, like, okay, people are bringing up HR complaints about Baldoni and Jamie Heath. Let's get them. Just, you know, let's just say that the difficulty on set was the weight shaming. Comments. And can this not be solved with stunt doubles, like, on both sides? I'm confused why this was such a point of contention. I feel like that's what stunt doubles are for. So anyways, it says that it was important to avoid injury not only to Baldoni, who suffered from lifelong back injuries, multiple bulging discs, but also Lively if the lift could not be completed successfully and safely. Again, is there no body doubles? I thought that's what they were for. Now, in another part, he says that Lively delivered an ultimatum that if Baldoni could not get on board with her work methods, he had two weeks to recast her, referring to her bringing up the sexual harassment allegations. Then I said, is this not backing up her claims? If she never spoke up and returned to set with her head held high, people would have victim blamed her and said, why didn't she quit? But this is literal proof that she did try to kind of quit and go about it privately the right way, you know, the way a perfect victim is supposed to. And then the paralegal says, Lively's use of the word ball buster would certainly have made it to her 17 point list had it been Baldoni who said it, and that's a good point. But again, like I say, I'll give it to this paralegal. They really could have had a flourishing career as a comedy fiction writer or screenwriter. They have more jokes than evidence, and I'll happily hand them a win there. If you guys read this lawsuit, it's very like they're speaking in hyperboles. They're speaking in terms that are like meant to really garner public sympathy for him and have the public do his bidding. Whereas Blake Lively's was almost very bland and like very legal jargon. So that is an interesting angle that it seems they're taking. They even claim at one point that she knew his tea order, which would prove that he could not have been sexually harassing her. Because why would she be so personal as to know his tea order if she felt uncomfortable? Mind you, her knowing his tea order was months before the claims are brought forward. And I said, what does a T order have to do with sexual harassment happening in the future? Now, Baldoni claimed that he did not know of or see the 17 point agreement, allegedly in his first lawsuit. But now he is claiming that he did see it in this lawsuit. Here it says the same day that SAG AFRA strike ended, Baldoni and the studios and producers were eager to resume. Instead, they were met with an email from Libby's lawyer who sent Wayfair an unsettling, an unexpected 17 point list of non negotiable conditions that must be met before Lively would return. So here I say it's confirming that he did see the 17 point list. But in the New York Times lawsuit, he alleges that he did not see it and that Jamie Heath had signed it without his knowledge of it happening. Blake Lively's team keeps bringing up her members of the cast and crew who were uncomfortable, even privately, back in November. And this is from an email from her lawyer. And I am curious if these people will come forward or if they might be forced to come forward because of this lawsuit. Moving forward, we'll see. I do think because Lively's team is so confidently mentioning that other women were uncomfortable on set, or maybe men, I'm not sure. They just say people. I'm really curious to know if those women do come forward. So here it says that her lawyer in an email said, observed by the film's producers, if the production is unwilling to accept or uphold these protections, our client is prepared to pursue her full legal rights and remedies. And then this letter is not intended to constitute a full statement of all facts and circumstances. Relating to this matter, it is not intended to be, nor should be constituted as a waiver, release or relinquishment of any of our clients rights or remedies legal, all of which hereby expressively reserved. And I said that. It also makes me think that they were gearing up for a lawsuit back in November. In Baldoni's lawsuit they do keep mentioning Sony's private support of Baldoni, but Sony has yet to publicly support him. In fact, this has been dispelled as Sony came forward in support of Blake Lively. They don't acknowledge that Sony made a public statement in support of Blake Lively. Instead they say that both Wayfair and Sony attempted to revise the document. So if Sony did attempt to revise the document, why didn't they release that publicly and. Or why were they so quickly to support Blake Lively? They keep talking about how they did not agree with the points in her 17 page agreement to continue filming. So why didn't they redline anything? Signing it and sending it back to them immediately is such a bad look. So they said this acquiescence. Oh my God, this is so bad for my dyslexia. Given with the written caveat that Wayfair disagreed with the characterizations was later used by Lively to falsely suggest an acknowledgment. Yet Jamie Heath signed and acknowledged the 17 point agreement. So again, why didn't they redline it then? He brings up that multiple times in Baldoni's lawsuit they make it a point to use language that talks about how no one was actually attracted to Lively, which is something Lively brings up in her claims. What is the point of that? Other to further embarrass her. It's not about a court of law, but a court about public opinion on his side. So they were talking about how the backer, like the billion dollar backer that founded Paylocity, that's on Baldoni side, he came in when Lively was filming a pregnancy scene, which they say she's wearing black briefs, which disputes her claims and yet they never provided evidence of that. That's interesting to me. They say that they have all of this footage and yet they did not provide that. So she insinuated that he was watching her nude. And then they say in parentheses, which he, he has no desire to do. They also talked about this with the OBGYN doctor that was hired that was Baldon's friend. They're like, it's insulting to him to think that he would want to like be that close to Bald or to Blake Lively's Genitals, like, something like that. And I'm like, why do they want to keep bringing up that. That they were not attracted to her? It just. Again, it's not about. Again, everyone knows, too, that, like, sex. I guess not everyone knows, but, like, really sexual harassment in sexual, you know, exploitation, whatever. Oftentimes it's not about the actual sexual gratification. It is more so about asserting power over someone. Now, he keeps bringing up handwritten notes from his choreography meeting with an intimacy coordinator. So why does he not have proof of this? Especially if at this time they were aware of the legal ramifications beginning to bubble over. So it's convenient that his handwritten notes are not accessible. He also brings up that Lively allegedly told him to get a nose job, which I say is awful if that's true. But they say that it happened on camera, so where's the proof? I mean, I'm not saying they don't have proof. I just think that if they're making that claim, they should include it. And yet they didn't. And again, what is her, like, saying something like that, which is so awful? Again, I'm not saying Blake Levy's not mean or cringe or, you know, like, has a bad track record. 100. She does, but it doesn't mean that she is not able to be a victim on set of a boss in an unsafe work environment. So they talk about the nose job thing and how she said he needs plastic surgery, and yet they did not provide video evidence of this happening. At one point, he talks about how his claim that she would be hot was in relation to the temperature in the bar. But then a few sentence later in his lawsuit, he says that. That he actually said that then it would be sexy. So it was in direct contrast with his temperature claim. I'm going to read you what the lawsuit said. Baldoni said it will be hot as it was 90 degrees in the small bar with no air conditioning. Lively mischaracterizes this in her complaint, referring to her personally as hot, using the slang term, given that Lively herself had earlier expressed to him that she wanted her character to be sexier. Baldoni encouraged her to accept direction by saying, it's sexy, meaning that without the big coat, the wardrobe was sexier. And then I said, so these two statements that are two sentences apart from each other are in complete contrast with one another. So again, part of his lawsuit is already falling apart. They keep including little jabs to embarrass Lively publicly, whereas I don't think her lawsuit really included that as much. It feels really unnecessary. So then they say that right after he said, it's hot. No, it's sexy. Then he says his statements were immediately followed by a gesture that she had something in her teeth. Again, what was the point of bringing that up except to embarrass her? Again, aligning with the smear campaign allegations they are going after her for promoting her hair care line and alcohol line during the press run of the movie, which I do think is tone deaf. But one, the movie was supposed to come out around Valentine's Day, so her hair care line was not set to come out when the movie was coming out originally. And also throughout the lawsuit, which he knows would have been heavily read, had a lot of promotion behind it. He multiple times promotes his two books, one called Boys Will be Human and then Man Enough again. And I said in here, highlights, I'm Zed at the book promotion. And then in the next paragraph, he promotes his wife, co founded a company that was designed for a breastfeeding garment. Again, another plug to one of his family's businesses. And then he promotes his Man Enough podcast throughout the lawsuit as well. So two can go. You know, I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I'm just saying two can go both. At this game, people are talking about how Blake Lively took a serious situation to promote her products, but Justin Baldoni is promoting his products multiple times throughout multiple of his lawsuits. And there's a double standard where people are not holding him accountable for that. Again, I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I'm just saying she's held to a standard that his fans are not holding him to. And then they talk about how her accusing him of sexual harassment, him and Jamie Heath, it's that it's a. It's against the sanctity of his values to his wife. And it's just the. The language is very theatrical. And then I said they never dispel the claims that they did not pay for covet insurance on set. And as a result, Lively and her newborn baby got sick with COVID As a result. They only had a few sentences in which they said that there was a return to work agreement established with COVID protocols, that no masking was required and that Wayfair agreed to inform Lively if production became aware that she was exposed to Covid. But they do not directly address that as a result, her and her newborn baby had become sick with COVID which she claims. And then I talk about the meeting, the infamous meeting where Ryan Reynolds yells at Baldoni to Me, this only further solidifies the fact that Lively was uncomfortable on set. They said a Sony rep backed Baldoni after this and that it was their biggest life regret was not standing up for Baldoni. Yet this Sony rep has yet to come forward, this mysterious Sony rep. And in fact, Sony has publicly backed Blake Lively instead. They said Lively and her husband had a very different meeting in mind. And then Reynolds launched into an aggressive tirade berating Baldoni. And I. And I said here, wouldn't his anger align with mistreatment of his wife on set? And then they said Sony representatives said later that she often thought of this meeting as her one regret and was not intervening and not intervening to stop Ryan Reynolds tirade against Baldoni. And then I said, will she publicly come forward? Because they bring this up in multiple lawsuits as kind of the saving grace that Baldoni was wronged by Ryan Reynolds. And yet Sony has yet to publicly say anything. Yet they publicly. So it's not that they want their hands clean. They publicly came forward in support of Blake Lively. So they're willing to talk about it, but they are not defending Baldoni. Another part here is the crew defending Baldoni, which a lot of the Baldoni bots and people online are saying. Well, the crew is coming in forward in support of Baldoni, and the cast is coming forward in support of Blake Lively because they want access to her and Ryan Reynolds, you know, connections throughout Hollywood. Yet the crew in the lawsuit that's publicly defending Baldoni, first, firstly, their names are hidden. The people that came out in defense of Blake Lively, their names are out there. But the crew is the freaking editors. The editors aren't even present during filming. So that's like. It literally does not really have relevance here because they are the editors. It's not like the camera guy is coming forward. It's someone who was on the back end that was not on set during the allegations taking place. They said here none of this was officially communicated to Baldoni. But Whispers reached him that part of his cut made it back to the final release. Again, Whispers reached him. Is that a legal term? And then I say here that so much of this lawsuit is about how he lost control of the film. But again, he's the director. Doesn't this make him look worse? So they said he's not even allowed to review the final cut before it was shown to the world. I said in all caps, he is the director. Like, this makes him look so much worse. Then he talks about being exiled by the cast and author. But to me, this further proves her claims, if everyone still supported him, they would say, well, why are they still friends if he's an abuser? So again, Blake Lively is, quote unquote, doing all the perfect steps of a perfect victim, and yet she's still being thrown under the bus by misogynists and people that are so quick to hate a woman who is speaking up for a safe work environment. As the premiere of the film approached, Lively made good on her promise and instructed Sony that she and the cast would not participate in any marketing or promotion of the film alongside Baldoni. And I said here, does this not align with allegations of sexual harassment? And then they said that he was stripped of his a film by credit. And Lively and Reynolds also unfollowed him on social media, as did the authority, someone with whom Baldoni had maintained a five year personal relationship with. And I said, again, this just proves the claims even more. Other cast members also unfollowed Baldoni. They keep hinting at Taylor Swift to drum up hype for this lawsuit, but there is no tie between her and the movie directly. So I'm really confused at the legal point of this. Like, is she going to be subpoenaed? Like, why do they keep bringing her up? They say here that Lively was leaving what she had earlier referred to as crumbs, a social media strategy she had learned from a close celebrity friend. And I said, please. And it's where you give fans just enough to allow them to come to their own conclusions, thereby launching an army of detectives that on information and belief, Lively hope would turn against Baldoni. And then Baldoni says he did not want to make the disputes on set public, yet he hired PR agencies to, in their own words, destroy her. So it said Baldoni had no intention of ever making this information public again. Why did he hire multiple PR firms then? One of his claims in the lawsuit is already being disputed by WME publicly. So his claims are already not holding up. And that's not a good look. He says here that Baldoni received word that during the premiere of Deadpool and Wolverine, Reynolds approached Baldoni's agency, an executive at wme, and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, suggesting that the agency was working with asexual predator. They said WME denied this claim already, which they did, that he went up to him and said that. But again, if Ryan Reynolds was privately explaining or expressing to people that Baldoni was a sexual predator, is that not proving Blake Lively's claims even more like, it's not like he came out swinging publicly. Ryan Reynolds was trying to raise the alarm bells privately. Is that not proving the claims? Okay, we're almost through this and then we'll get into my my questions and my thoughts. Here we go. They make the claim that his PR team was hung out to dry because the texts were wrongfully obtained. So this is Jennifer Abel and this is Melissa Nathan. But again, Jennifer Abel had these conversations on a work phone, which totally idiotic. The proposal that they sent, which they say was wrongfully obtained. And I said, please, it was on a work phone. And so this was the public relations company that was hired to protect Baldoni. And then the promotion of the film by Lively aligned with her contract with Sony. Baldoni is the one that went off script. And as a way to explain why no cast or crew wanted to be photographed with him at the premiere, they said Starting at least July 10, lively social media post promoting the film maintained a light, hearty hearted, frothy attitude, depicting lively and glamorous and floral inspired couture. Again, I said this was the direct request and it was in their contract by Sony. Not only that, but they included a screenshot from the official it ends with us Instagram account, which I'm guessing is run by Sony or someone contracted by Sony. In the caption they said, grab your florals. I'm guessing that Lively is not the one running this account who typed out that caption. So does that not prove that Lively was speaking in a way that aligned with Sony's contractual agreement? So by including the screenshot from the it ends with us movie official account, they are further proving that Lively her point was that like she was in alignment with what Sony was telling her to do. And Baldoni is the one who went off script. And then Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel talk about operating in good faith and that Jennifer Abel was being loyal to her previous employer. Yet nowhere in the lawsuit are they addressing the fact that there was evidence in text of them calling her former boss Stephanie Jones a and talking about how they can bury Blake Lively. And they don't want any of that in writing. They don't. They conveniently do not acknowledge that. So here it says through it all, Jennifer Abel remained loyal to Jones. And then I said, there are texts of Abel and Nathan literally calling Jones. And then Sloan ruthlessly took advantage of Nathan's good faith. And I said, good faith? Nathan is the one who said that she can bury anyone. They say that an IT search of Jennifer Abel's computer and work phone turned up nothing. But in Joan's lawsuit, which keeps getting overlooked, there's Actually evidence of Jennifer Abel downloading sensitive company docs and changing the Jones work logo to her new competing firm logo, RWA Communications. So there's evidence. Afterwards, the lawyer demanded that Abel hand over her personal laptop. Abel complied and the IT professional Conduct conducted a search. So again, she had to hand over her work computers. It was not illegally obtained. And then Melissa Nathan says that they are not using bots, but this is in quotes. What does that mean? What are real bots? Especially because Melissa Nathan and her tactics are allegedly known to use bots. Look at Johnny Depp's trial. Look at her being investigated alongside Donald Trump for the 2016 election interference. Allegedly. I mean, what does she mean by bots and quotes versus what are real bots? And why does she not say that they didn't use those? Again, I don't use bots, so I wouldn't know how to access them. I don't know what a real bot is compared to a fake bot. Would love for them to, you know, go into that, but they don't. They then in his lawsuit claim that a upside down smiley face emoji proves sarcasm and it completely negates the fact that Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel admitted to planting negative stories about Lively. Can you use an emoji to defend yourself in court? I didn't know the upside smiley down face was like universally, legally, by law, like handcuffed to the Bible meant sarcasm, but that's what they're claiming. Now. My questions for all of this that I really wanted answered, let's go through them. Number one, for him and his team to dive into what they meant by we can bury anyone and using bots, who is the mysterious Jed Wallace guy that they text that is based in Austin that allegedly is able to manipulate Reddit and TikTok algorithm in their client's favor. And I said they conveniently exclude the conversations about being able to manipulate algorithms on Reddit and Tick Tock. In Baldoni's lawsuit, they do not mention Jed Wallace here, even though he is named in two other lawsuits against him. They do not mention how they said that they can bury anyone, nor do they explain that what they meant by that. They also do not acknowledge that they said they can't put down in writing what they are capable of doing. All of that is really interesting. They also didn't acknowledge the text where his own team was saying, thank God people don't know more about, you know, I don't agree with half of what the videos are like. Justin Baldoni's own team is laughing at the people that are making videos defending him and people are still defending him. And it's working like a charm. That's what's driving me crazy. That's why I feel like I'm like going insane. And thank you to those of you that are sane and like actually grounded in reality, whether you agree with me or not. His team literally admits to allegedly manipulating algorithms. Like I'm going crazy anyways. So they don't acknowledge the fact that his own team was texting about how he self righteous, how he was whispering in her ear. Everyone on set was uncomfortable with the kisses. They don't mention any of that. Next question. For him and his team to acknowledge the fact that there was a direct connection between negative articles written about Lively and positive about Baldoni from his publicist, Melissa Nathan's sister, Sarah Nathan, who was a journalist at Page Six in New York Post. Conveniently, Sarah Nathan's name did not come up in this lawsuit. I was hoping it would so they could dispel that. Maybe they can, you know, maybe she's not her sister. They don't, they don't claim that at all. And so Melissa Nathan's sister, the Page Six editor, was directly writing stories that were negative about Lively and positive about Baldoni. And they do not acknowledge this at all yet they should acknowledge it if they want to completely dispel the smear campaign allegations. Now for him to acknowledge or dispel the fact that he told Lively he could talk to her dead father. This is a personal for me again, it's not really a criminal or like sexual harassment thing. I personally just Coco Moco, hand to the Bible, want to know why he said he could talk to dead people. They don't acknowledge that. Damn. Next for him to acknowledge or dispel the fact that the entire cast unfollowed him due to his on set behavior. And why did Sony and WME publicly stand with Lively if she was the problem? They claim multiple times that Sony supports Baldoni over Lively and Reynolds, but they have yet to provide concrete evidence. Sony has come out in public support of Lively, which contradicts about half of their evidence in this 179 page lawsuit. Evidence that they never show. Conveniently, WME also came out to say Reynolds never asked them to drop Baldoni. So that has already been disputed and proven false, allegedly and publicly. The last question was for him to provide video evidence that they claim to have that dispels Lively's case and claims. Yet even though they claimed to have it, there was no video evidence included in this lawsuit. Correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone looks through it, I could not find any video evidence, yet they claim to have it. Final Thoughts in the extended cut of this episode, I will be talking about the overall implications of this case and why victims very rarely speak out. Is Blake Lively the perfect victim? No. But does she have to be for her claims to be valid? No. Justin Baldoni has yet to disprove her claims, and I actually think that his filing against the New York Times a few weeks ago was more of a litmus test to see how easily his side could manipulate the masses into turning on Lively. Because they don't think that they're going to win the New York Times lawsuit. Allegedly. In my opinion, no one's won a lawsuit against them since 1964. That was just a litmus test to see what they should include in this lawsuit. And they fine tuned this new lawsuit by leaning into the narrative that the tiktokers and talking heads so easily handed to them on a silver platter. I will also briefly discuss the tick tock ban that goes into effect at midnight from when I'm filming this video because even if Trump saves it, the app is dead in the water. Unfortunately my Somalis audience is on Apple podcast. So if you guys are listening over there or if you're listening anywhere, if you guys could go jump over and leave me a review that would help me get in front of more Apple users and your reviews help me grow this ad free podcast. So thank you so much. If you want to hear more from this episode or leave your respectful and thoughtful comments, which you guys always do. Thank you. Then you can do so by becoming a paying member of my best selling sub stack@cocomoco.com I'm going to be turning off comments on my YouTube and you can comment on Substack following the footsteps of that lady that makes $5 million a year. Now for my unfiltered thoughts, Paying Coconut, I will see you over on substack@cocomoco.substack.com thank you guys. It's been so.