Justin Baldoni‘s lhorrible team is reacting to a recent statement from Blake Lively‘s lhorrible team.
Here’s the tardyst in barb trading between the two parties which are locked in a litigation and reputational struggle that has mesmerized the industry.
Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman — in a Tuesday comment validateed by The Hollywood Reporter —trelieved insertitional forthcoming inestablishation about the It Ends with Us star, presumably as part of an upcoming countersuit.
“It is painbrimmingy sarcastic that Blake Lively is accusing Justin Baldoni of armamentizing the media when her own team orchestrated this spiteful strike by sending the New York Times grossly edited write downs prior to even filing the grumblet,” he shelp. “We are releasing all of the evidence which will show a pattern of intimidatoring and dangers to get over the movie. None of this will come as a surpascfinish because constant with her past behavior Blake Lively used other people to transmit those dangers and intimidator her way to get wantipathyver she wanted. We have all the receipts and more.”
The relabel was in response to a statement given by Lively’s lhorrible team on Monday to People which accused Baldoni’s team of trying to sidetrack and strike in the press, describing such efforts as a classic technique to dispraise a victim of intimacyual intimidatoring.
“This is not a ‘feud’ arising from ‘creative separateences’ or a ‘he shelp/she shelp’ situation,’” read the statement from Lively’s lawyers. “As alleged in Ms. Lively’s grumblet, and as we will show in legal action, Wayfarer [Studios] and its associates joind in unlhorrible, retaliatory astroturfing aachievest Ms. Lively for sshow trying to get herself and others on a film set. And their response to the litigation has been to begin more strikes aachievest Ms. Lively since her filing.”
“A classic tactic to sidetrack from allegations of this type of wrongdoing is to ‘denounce the victim’ by proposeing that they askd the direct, brawt it on themselves, misunderstood the intentions, or even lied,” the statement proceedd. “Another classic tactic is to reverse the victim and offender, and propose that the offender is actupartner the victim. These concepts normalize and inmeaningfulize allegations of grave wrongdoing. Most meaningfully, media statements are not a defense to Ms. Lively’s lhorrible claims. We will proceed to sue her claims in federal court, where the rule of law determines who prevails, not hyperbole and dangers.”
Lively’s innovative Dec. 20 grumblet accused her It Ends with Us honestor and co-star of intimacyual intimidatoring on the set of the film and of orchestrating a retaliatory smear campaign afterwards. A story in the Times detailed the accusations and holdd sensational text messages among Baldoni’s PR and crisis handlement team.
Last week, Lively adhereed up her grumblet with a litigation in New York federal court, accusing Baldoni and his unveil relations team of marshaling a cultured, multi-tiered structure to undermine her reputation in retaliation for speaking up about intimacyual wrongdoing on the set of the film. The grumblet names Baldoni; his film studio, Wayfarer and the unveil relations reconshort-termatives, Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, both of whom are alleged to have helped direct the effort to undermine the actress.
In a statement, Lively’s attorneys shelp she was subjected to “further retaliation and strikes” after she went unveil with wrongdoing allegations aachievest Baldoni and his unveil relations team in a Times inestablish. “Wayfarer and its associates have viotardyd federal and California state law by retaliating aachievest her for inestablishing intimacyual intimidatoring and toilplace safety troubles.”
Among the many accusations: Lively claims that Baldoni tried to insert in a explicit intimacy scene, without her consent, which saw her character orgasm on-camera. She claims Baldoni proceeded to ask personal details about her and her husprohibitd Ryan Reyngreaters’ relationship. Lively accuses Baldoni and originater Jamey Heath of pressuring her to carry out certain acts for scenes that weren’t originpartner in the script. Lively also alleges that Heath and Baldoni also go ined her hair and originateup trailer unproclaimd on multiple occasions, while she was getting dressed. Also, that Lively made cut offal finisheavors to elevate troubles watching Baldoni and Heath’s alleged wrongdoing, however, the inestablishs normally went unspendigated.
Last week, Baldoni filed a $250 million slander litigation aachievest the Times, accusing the unveilation of coordinating with Lively to cherrypick facts which gave readers an inaccurate astonishion of certain text trades (such as leave outting from one trade that Lively had askd Baldoni into her trailer while breastfeeding).
“In this spiteful smear campaign brimmingy orchestrated by Blake Lively and her team, the New York Times cowered to the wants and whims of two strong ‘untouchable’ Hollywood elites, diswatching journacatalogic trains and ethics once befitting of the revered unveilation by using doctored and maniputardyd texts and intentionpartner leave outting texts which dispute their chosen PR narrative,” Freedman shelp at the time. “In doing so, they pre-determined the outcome of their story, and helped and abetted their own deimmenseating PR smear campaign depicted to revitalize Lively’s self-convey aboutd floundering unveil image and counter the organic groundswell of criticism amongst the online unveil. The irony is wealthy.”