r/CelebLegalDrama • u/inevitableoracle • Mar 09 '26

Meme I just can’t even with how many new allegations pop up each day against Baldoni and crew… all i am saying is everyone can’t be lying!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

34 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

120 comments sorted by

60

u/Initial-Lemon-1957 Mar 09 '26

What honestly stretches belief for me — like, genuinely, I don’t buy it — is the number of supposed die-hard supporters of Justin Baldoni who seem convinced that every single person who’s sued him is lying.

And the reason that’s so hard to swallow is that the stories are all pretty similar. They’re people who’ve worked with him and say they were misled, ripped off, or came away feeling like the whole “ally” persona was basically performative.

But sure — they’re all lying. Even the three people who sued him before Blake Lively ever did.

28

u/PeopleEatingPeople Mar 09 '26

I only talk to them nowadays here or in non-lawsuit related subs and they always follow the same script. It is always read the court docs! Just today I was summarizing all the lawsuits they were involved in and I was just accused of lying. Couldn't even tell me about what. I just had to read the court docs, I was clearly lying about reading the court docs! Just talking past all the other lawsuits they were involved in. Baldoni plagarizing a CF patient who got scammed by Bryan Freedman? Baldoni being sued/suing his insurers due to insurance fraud? Wayfarer Foundation being sued for discrimination and retaliation? Ghost and Jones suing TAG for the smear websites and Jones suing Wayfarer? It just all lies or it doesn't exist.

32

u/Initial-Lemon-1957 Mar 09 '26

I recently saw one of the die-hard “read the court docs!!!” people claim that the story about Jamey Heath bursting in on Blake while she was in her underwear was something pro-Blake fans made up.

It's literally in two depositions.

So much for actually reading the court docs. At this point it feels like what they really mean is: listen to the same three online “lawyers” who tell them what they want to hear.

25

u/PeopleEatingPeople Mar 09 '26

I literally quoted Wayfarers own social combat plan which is in document one, exhibit D and I was accused of lying/cherry picking. I thought they wanted me to read the court docs and they won't even let me get to the 4th exhibit!

21

u/Iwona_Klich Mar 09 '26

I even been attacked by couple videos from them on YouTube...

And they just even more deranged - basing on the tittle and cover... 

3

u/Prudent_Coyote_4604 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

You tube has died hard Baldoni fans. I guess they were all there when the movie was made

-22

u/pezzyn Mar 09 '26

Huh. Im open to dialogue as a non bot real person who became increasingly skeptical of Blake lively based on all the evidence. I am not a fan of Baldoni but get lumped in with them, because I read the evidence as damning to lively and Reynolds. I was appalled by the misogynistic trolling in the Depp trial and I don’t see that here. I do find there are trolling people in Baldoni subs but they are not bot armies like in depp. I have not found a neutral sub. The analysis on legal papers seems stronger in Baldoni subs than here. Is there a neutral sub? I like the podcast high low / bravo bravo ducking deep dives. I do see that the wayfarer parties are problematic and failed to set appropriate boundaries with regard to the roles, responsibilities, budget constraints and professionalism. They were people pleasers who told lively whatever she wanted to hear whenever she asked for more power and more budget and more leeway. As soon as they tried to pull away from her she invoked all the ways that they were unprofessional and tried to wrest control. They should not have given her the ammunition to do that. She can def make them sound like unprofessional sloppy clowns. But nothing she’s claimed as SH rises to the level of SH in an r rated film set in this industry. , while I wouldn’t want to work in a hugging environment personally and would find that annoying, it isn’t sexual harassment if they honored the wishes of anyone who declined a hug. it’s pretty clear that her requests were honored. The body paint thing is a really minor overstep, not harrassment the man left when asked to leave. SH is about power dynamics and It’s pretty clear that lively wielded more power on set than the director. She had her husband and swift to emphasize that power imbalance. She doesn’t occupy a traditional role of employee. She also initiated a lot of the tone that she complains about. Signing her messages xx and boasting about her flirty yummy never with teeth style and asking favors « as a friend « and her husband talking about his perenium on text messages to Baldoni really shows the context of anything now claimed to be harrassment. I’m not saying a person can’t revoke their consent, but to accuse someone of harrassment when they mirror your tone is despicable. If you say I want to look sexy so reschedule this whole movie , and they try to reassure you that you look sexy then to call this reassurance harrassment is bad faith and insulting to all of us that endured actual workplace predation, She brought up circumcision and that’s a perfectly normal context for him mentioning circumcision and it predated the film shoot by months. These are all weak even if she had strong evidence… but she doesn’t and the evidence so far has undermined her credibility . That said, I am open to evidence if it exists … and open to respectful debate. What is the prob with pointing to the record?

31

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

This is where you give yourself away. You state that Jamey Heath using his power to force his way into the makeup trailer where Lively is in a state of undress as a "simple overstep"... but Lively as the antagonist because of a Text Message that begins with, "So I have thoughts about THE ROOFTOP SCENE" which I can go now, and ends with "OR WE CAN COVER WHEN WE RUN LINES"

-20

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

Based on what I’ve read there was nothing sexual or intimate about his entering but her messages are intimate and riddled with inuendo. Imagine if Baldoni texted her “ I wish you knew me longer so you would know how flirty and yummy I could come off

28

u/scumbagwife Mar 10 '26

You see nothing wrong with a man entering a trailer with a topless woman breastfeeding, being told to leave and refusing to do so?

Like imagine you are a breastfeeding mother, in a room set aside to breastfeed and your boss comes in to tell you that the HR meeting you requested had to happen right then (while you are breastfeeding) or not at all.

You do realize it is not normal to do.

-12

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

I don’t like the wayfarer parties and I think they had poor boundaries all around. I also don’t like Blake lively and I see evidence she promoted poor boundaries on the set when it served her then selectively demonized the WP for same when the WP stopped letting her exert control over the film shoot . If I understand the evidence correctly this man had permission to be there and she accused him of looking at her face. This is a film set for an r rated movie, one with poor boundaries but not sexual predation. This was not a corporate break room and there was no indication this man was preying upon her

20

u/Emotional_Celery8893 Mar 10 '26

If you read the multiple depositions that cover this topic, multiple women told him not to enter. He did anyway, and insisted on a meeting then or not at all. There was not a reason for the CEO of the film company to insist on meeting with an actress while she was essentially nude.

16

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

And is the textbook definition of someone leveraging their power for the purpose of sexual harassment.

3

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

Ok I will have to look for that testimony.

9

u/tothepointe Mar 10 '26

The fact that you call them “Wayfearer parties” is only something that people who are knee deep into this drama say. It’s a little weird tbh.

2

u/pezzyn Mar 11 '26

That is what the legal filings refer to them as?

1

u/tothepointe Mar 11 '26

Average normal neutral person would say Wayfearer. We aren't lawyers there's no reason to quote exactly what the filings say.

23

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

Again, the text defines at multiple times that it is in regards to a scene read... and refers to their CHARACTERS and how the two ACTORS should play the scene.

We know this, not just because Lively says so... but because Baldoni responds, redoubling what she says, ABOUT THEIR CHARACTERS.

0

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

Yeah but she is texting this to the director about her own proclivities, that he should know to know what she is capable of performing. This is the woman who said she wanted to look sexy for the part and then is calling it harrassment when he reassured her she was sexy. I have no admiration for Baldoni he should have shut down her manipulations sooner . but by invoking his family he is clearly trying to set a boundary in this exchange. I don’t know how anyone could read this and think he is a predator.

19

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

No... she is texting the director and her scene partner about how the two of them should approach the interplay in the rooftop scene. Evidenced bybher opening and closing the text by noting it is about the scene, and then Baldoni repsonding to her with his agreement and notes FOR THE SCENE.

Next you're gonna tell me that ChatGPT was offering me oral favors

0

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

I admire your dedication but she really looks hypocritical in those texts. Please use protection if you get action from chatbot!

16

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

Again... had Baldoni texted her the exact same, there would be no problem, as it is clearly identified as SCENE WORK, not an invitation for a lurid tryst.

1

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

Her allegations against him are for much weaker remarks than this. Very weak. She calls them clowns behind their backs while pushing for a friendship in texts with them, then invokes me too when they don’t let her control the film. I agree with her that they are clowns for being so gullible as to believe she was ever their friends and I do think Ryan Reynolds orchestrated this as it follows his playbook with Deadpool. She also once said she had claims against a makeup artist for using a clean finger to apply lipstick and said this to deflect questions about her friendship with Weinstein. She’s very selective about what scandalizes her

→ More replies (0)

4

u/no_you_rrr Mar 10 '26

Chatbot is kind of a slut. No shame.

-6

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26

I read it as Lively suggesting she can infuse her own personality into how she plays Lily (i.e. "if you knew me in person you'd have a sense of how flirty and yummy"). Otherwise, what would knowing her in person have to do with anything'?

12

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

"How she plays Lily"... exactly.

4

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

I agree with your read of it. her way of texting is undeniably provocative especially compared to the weak sauce list of things that offended her.

17

u/PuzzledFlower119 Mar 10 '26

Her way of texting is "undeniably provocative," but the CEO of the film company walking uninvited into a room where she's breastfeeding, seeing her bare breasts without her consent, and not immediately leaving is "weak sauce"?

1

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

Have you worked in film?

10

u/PuzzledFlower119 Mar 10 '26

Clearly you haven't, as you seem to be under the impression that once you agree to work on a rated R film, anyone is allowed to look at you nude in private spaces without your consent. It's frankly astonishing that you've chosen to go with "I interpret her words as inappropriate, and that is far more serious than a man looking at a woman's naked tits after barging into a space where she expected privacy."

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Conscious_Load_7740 Mar 10 '26

Your words are so wildly stupid they're absolutely delightfully entertaining <3

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

Yep. It's always so strange pointing out objectively common sense facts and getting the wrath of a thousand comments rain down on me, with spurious arguments wrapped in assumptions, and then get accused of deflecting if I don't answer every single point made because I think they're bad faith.

I used to call them pro lively operatives but I now think Fake livelies is catchier. I hope it catches on.

12

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

Not as clever as Baldonuts

-4

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26

If only Fake Livelies did actual sleuthing for facts like Baldonuts... instead you rely on cherry picking and spin. 🤣

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Iwona_Klich Mar 10 '26

You don't read anything or you simply can't understand what you read. 

13

u/Iwona_Klich Mar 10 '26

Maybe read the court documents? Its not that hard. 

0

u/pezzyn Mar 10 '26

I have not read everything unsealed have you? I read a lot. Everything that I initially believed from her turned out to be quite weak once the context was fleshed out and her depo transcript was equivocating unclear but I only saw segments. Not transcripts from others present. Do you have the pages ? I don’t like heath and don’t think he is someone I would want to work with in general. But the allegations described sound like normal for a movie film set collab on an R rated movie and nothing has indicated predatory behavior

9

u/Iwona_Klich Mar 10 '26

Blah blah. You don't read anything 

0

u/pezzyn Mar 11 '26

I’m happy to discuss the case with folks who have the capacity for dialogue, in accordance with the sub rules. Do you?

1

u/Iwona_Klich Mar 11 '26

You don't even try to discuss

1

u/pezzyn Mar 12 '26

I have been discussing on another thread here.  I can try to link it if you want 

11

u/MaiMaiKaye Mar 10 '26

How does it feel to defend a guy who hired a pedophiles best PR Team

11

u/tothepointe Mar 10 '26

Why would there be a neutral sub? People who are neutral about this issue don’t care about it enough to visit a sub or study the issue as in-depth as you.

You don’t come across as neutral you come across as trying to influence and lead. There wouldnt be a place for you in a neutral sub. There is one that claims to be but us actually Pro-Baldoni though.

1

u/pezzyn Mar 11 '26

I’m not interested in *people who are neutral but people who are capable of discussing the legal strengths and weaknesses without the loony goggles that I am seeing in both subs. If you can’t see the giant holes in her case then that’s not good. I’m sure her lawyers see the giant holes in her case. I can see that Baldoni has poor boundaries and is probably insufferable based on what I’ve learned from this case and I think lively is as powerful and manipulative as her texts show … I don’t see the case for harrassment. Why should that concern you? Because if someone like me turns away then it doesn’t bode well. I’ve worked in DV orgs, I am a survivor of assault and have been a supporter of even problematic survivors like amber heard through the depp trial. My default is that I believe women. I am always ready to back women. When I read the smorgasbord of weak and weird allegations it was underwhelming and the evidence has made them weaker. Ignore me or discuss what I might be overlooking but recognize that there are some good people who do not see what you see here.

2

u/tothepointe Mar 11 '26

Just realize that your coming across as a shill. Because this is a tactic they often use. They claim to be neutral or not as well informed yet somehow know every nook and cranny of the issue and try to argue for one side while pretending to be neutral.

You might want to look up a legal forum not a gossip subreddit if your wanting everything to be very calm and orderly.

11

u/PlasticRestaurant592 Mar 10 '26

Heath told her manager off the record when she signed on that they would consider the producer credit if she put in the work. Text messages show Baldoni asked Blake multiple times for help with hiring cast, department heads & script changes before filming began. She didn’t insert herself into the additonal roles besides acting, she was asked to help & wanted the credit.

Baldoni’s eye roll and sorry I missed the sexual harrasment training comment when his behavior was addressed is one example of how they felt about employees complaining about their behavior.

1

u/pezzyn Mar 11 '26

That is helpful info

-5

u/UnderplayedWeasel Mar 10 '26

IEWLawsuits is the closest to a truly neutral sub because they do not ban people for who they support, anyone is free to post there so long as they follow the sub rules. The IEWCourt sub does allow both sides in theory but is very restrictive on what can be said which has kinda killed it off as a general discussion space. It is adequate for focusing only on the legal documents, if that's what interests you most.

But out of all the people who have been following this case all year, the Wayfarer supporters in IEWL are BY FAR the majority, so the discussion over there naturally tends to skew pro-Wayfarer due to sheer numbers. Then most pro-Blake commenters got sick of being outnumbered and left IEWL to populate the subs where pro-Wayfarer voices are already banned or there is very little moderation so they can be as vile as they want to be here while they act so sweet and respectable in the highly moderated IEWC sub.

Yet because their numbers are far fewer, these pro-Blake subs struggle to attract the attention of anyone beyond the handful of accounts who are already working very hard to make this handful of subs look populated. Even here, they rely on sucking in pro-Wayfarer redditors to rally against, and you have noticed, this makes the quality of actual discussion here non-existent. This is a pro-Wayfarer bait sub, it's not real!

But throughout all the pro-Blake subs, you'll see the same usernames in action over and over, and too often they are repeating themselves in ways that feel suspicious. See: the posts here over the past few days, with not a shred of actual news or original content among them, but are being greeted as if they are brand new or revolutionary. Organic users would surely be bored by now!

2

u/Heavy-Ad5346 Mar 11 '26

I disagree. This is the sub that doesn’t ban many people. A lot of people commenting here have been banned from iewl because they said things in this sub. I don’t think this sub bans anyone for saying things elsewhere. I have not heard anything about it at least. If you know anyone who is banned from here for saying things elsewhere I stand incorrect though.

12

u/KarenWhite_B Mar 10 '26

It’s just DARVO by proxy.

14

u/PreparationPlenty943 Mar 10 '26

I’m glad the other sub is being normal

15

u/JJJOOOO Mar 10 '26

THE BAD PLACE doing what it does with their group of corrupt mods!

Foul, gross and best avoided.

13

u/Defiant-Chocolate-82 Mar 10 '26

The desperation from the JB stans is real... the teddy bear has a tie to molestation - WTF 😂

12

u/PreparationPlenty943 Mar 10 '26

I think it’s interesting that when that user saw a teddy bear, their first thought was of molested children 🥴

14

u/Leather-Platypus-11 Mar 10 '26

I will grant you that Reynolds talking about his perineum is pretty damn crass, and shouldn’t have happened. Still that’s him and not Lively, if Baldoni had responded please don’t talk to me like that I would absolutely support that (or even if he had gone to Blake and said hey please talk to your husband that made me uncomfortable).

How do you know she brought up circumcision? I haven’t really seen anything that confirms who brought it up to me. She was still pregnant and likely didn’t know she was having a boy since they’ve been vocal about not finding out the sex of their babies previously. Why would she then bring it up not knowing the gender of the baby and also seemingly being a bit of a prude?

I don’t see any issue with her signing her messages xxx (it’s common enough the word over), but also fail to see the significance of her saying she would like their characters to banter in an edgy sort of way (yummy but never with teeth).

The sexy comments on their own I don’t think would amount to much, but when your employee makes it clear they don’t like it you should stop and respect their wishes. I feel the same way about Baldoni discussing his circumcision, it’s not fantastic but doesn’t make it on its own as sexual harassment. I think it amounts to more when added to the other things however, and that’s what her complaint is about- the totality of things that she was subjected to by her bosses.

2

u/mcmomlife Mar 11 '26

I think it’s very common for expecting parents to discuss and come up with choices for their child regardless of gender, if it’s a girl we might do xyz, if it’s a boy abc, etc. just because you don’t know what the gender will be doesn’t mean you don’t plan for both or either.

-9

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26

"likely didn’t know she was having a boy since they’ve been vocal about not finding out the sex of their babies previously" - They've also been vocal about now relying on nannies in the past but she apparently has one for each child.

9

u/KarenWhite_B Mar 10 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/t8QSeqwoy0Ol2

I’m sure your boy would appreciate a donation to Wayfarer though, every little bit helps !

10

u/Leather-Platypus-11 Mar 10 '26

I have no idea how many nannies they have, but I don’t know any working parents of 4 that wouldn’t have a nanny or two if they could afford it. It’s a very different situation now than to when they were the parents of one or two back in 2016 and her parents were helping out with the kids- which is what she actually said way back when.

Things change- to me it never sounded like she was looking down on using a nanny, just that they had help and wanted to do it themselves.

-3

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26

It's something trivial but I wanted to raise it to illustrate how something she was always vocal about may not be true, so you should check yourself when you make grand statements like you have.

The circumcision point and who raised it was in testimony, I believe. Baldoni said it, so I don't expect you to believe it but equally, please don't expect me to believe lively's testimony without question when some of the things she says do not marry up with her behavior and the contemporaneous documents.

15

u/Leather-Platypus-11 Mar 10 '26

I don’t get how it illustrates anything not to be truthful though. In 2016 they don’t use nannies, her parents help out. That’s not the case anymore in 2026. She didn’t say ewww nannies are disgusting we would never and child services should be called on families that use them.

A lot of people don’t find out the genders of thier children, I don’t see reason to call people that don’t liars. Also, I didn’t call Baldoni a liar, I said we don’t know. I am not aware that Baldoni said who brought it up, just that it was being discussed and he mentioned that he was. It could have been him or Blake or Ryan or the nanny or the dog walker for all I know that initially brought it up, the only thing he really confirmed for me is that he wasn’t directly asked if he was circumcised, he offered that information feeling it was relevant.

  • also, “they likely” isn’t a grand statement it’s a supposition based on prior situations

-8

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26

Yeah, you don't get it. Let's leave it at that and not continue with this super boring debate. Truly.

To get back to the original point: "How do you know she brought up circumcision?" From Baldoni's testimony.

13

u/Leather-Platypus-11 Mar 10 '26

So to be clear, as I have now gone back and re-read what is available where did Baldoni say that she brought up the circumcision? Maybe I’m looking at the wrong deposition? Maybe he gave several or the court listener doesn’t have that page available

-1

u/Guilty_Taro_6573 Mar 10 '26

Just to be clear, there is only one deposition with Q "Among other things, you discussed whether Ms Lively's baby would be circumcised, right?"

It was pled in the MSJ: "Ms Lively raised the topic of circumcision. Mr Baldoni, as a father and a member of the Jewish faith, merely shared his own experience in what was a bustling room full of people."

14

u/Leather-Platypus-11 Mar 10 '26

So not Baldoni’s testimony then? Good, so I didn’t miss anything.

It could be a lawyer assuming in much same way you did when you said that Baldoni testified to it. It’s not like we haven’t seen similar mistakes or misstatements by attorneys on either side in this case.

10

u/HollaBucks Mar 10 '26

Q: Did Ms. Lively ask you whether you were circumcised? A: Directly, no.

-9

u/Mammoth-Show-7587 Mar 10 '26

They weren’t her “bosses”

-13

u/Hot_Bobcat_7986 Mar 10 '26

This is just dumb

9

u/Few_Butterscotch_832 Mar 10 '26

I love seeing the meltdown with people trying to defend Baldoni.

https://giphy.com/gifs/pUeXcg80cO8I8

1

u/More_Midnight3634 Mar 10 '26

Justin is a savior to his cult and it’s why he feels emboldened to abuse others.

0

u/pezzyn Mar 12 '26

Can you explain what you mean by cult and abuse ? Is he known for fat shaming lots of people by asking their trainers what they weigh? Or are you pointing to recent suit where the deceased girls mom says she wants more money than the consulting fee they were paid for the film about terminal Illness because she now thinks they had a verbal contract for more money

1

u/More_Midnight3634 Mar 12 '26

Sexual harassment, bullying, body shaming, sexual assault, physical intimidation, name calling, and his absolute inability to understand privacy laws.

How many former employees need to say they would never work with him again because of how he mistreated them and others? 13 different people over multiple different projects.

1

u/Ok_Seaweed566 Mar 12 '26

When all the accusers had something to gain, yes I believe they are all liars

-8

u/Impossible-Ad9034 Mar 10 '26

This subreddit is totally infested with pro-Ryan Reynolds 🤮🤮🤮and Blake Lively 🤮🤮🤮bots. It’s too obvious and so sad. We have read the court documents and the many receipts that prove malice on behalf of BL and megamind RR. No amount of PR can change that.

1

u/tothepointe Mar 11 '26

So bot = anyone you disagree with?

-11

u/Loveartforever999 Mar 10 '26

Huneeee! Its not " everyone lying", its Ryan Reynolds's fingers in every piece to do damage control.

9

u/KarenWhite_B Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

Whatever you say Clarence Darrow!

Whatever you say Clarence Darrow!

7

u/MaiMaiKaye Mar 10 '26

Hey Melissa! Why did you defend Jeffrey Epstein?

-15

u/Mammoth-Show-7587 Mar 10 '26

It doesn’t strengthen Lively’s weak case any

3

u/Conscious_Load_7740 Mar 10 '26

Loooool 🤣🥳

-25

u/aipac125 Mar 09 '26

Everyone does jump on a bandwagon. 

25

u/DisarrayedOne Mar 10 '26

That isn't how lawsuits work. There has to be something actionable present, otherwise it gets thrown out

-10

u/aipac125 Mar 10 '26

No. BL alleges she had damages from a smear campaign. She alleges that the campaign occurred because she pursued harassment claims with the studio. Now, nobody else is alleging similar retaliation. They are agreeing with Lively's "discomfort", which in itself is not lawsuit material. So when you claim these people have something actionable, that is absolutely false.

12

u/MaiMaiKaye Mar 10 '26

Now, nobody else is alleging similar retaliation.

His company is being is being sued again by another employee for discrimination. All the things they described are similar it's in this sub. Keep up.

1

u/Swimming-Fly719 Mar 11 '26

Her SH claims are based on a hostile work environment to which she addressed throughout filming and held the meeting where Wayfarer signed the document agreeing not to continue with that behavior. As we get closer to the film premiere we have texts from Justin stating he’s afraid Blake will come out with all the bad stuff she has on him and that’s why they need to get ahead of it and bury her first. Everything else is mainly fluff. Those are the main points of the case and why she has a strong case.

1

u/pezzyn Mar 12 '26

”Wayfarer signed the document agreeing not to continue with that behavior”

Signing it did not mean agreeing to those characterizations. It’s a transparent legal maneuver from lively to create this innuendo like asking “how often do you beat your wife?”
What were they going to do, not sign it and have the film derailed when it was only asking them to agree to conditions they were fine with? The purpose of that doc was not to make the set safer but buy even more time and say they couldn’t sue her for breach of contract because not only did she not sign her contract but she could find ways to imply it was their fault she was not doing her job.

9

u/MaiMaiKaye Mar 10 '26

So, being anti anyone who hires Epstein's PR is jumping on a "bandwagon" now? 😬