Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm just catching up: so a crazy BL poster is posing as a crazy JB poster, and planning to complain to Jeff about having their IP address tracked in an effort to get this thread shut down? Makes sense, since BL posters are the only ones who actually want this thread shut down. It was only a matter of time before they started posing as other posters.

No. I'm the poster who identified, completely out of the blue, a post from the lady who thought I was tracking her posts today from one post out of hundreds, and THIS THREAD MUST NEVER BE SHUT DOWN. This thread will carry my name forward to future generations of online sleuthing! Like, should I put this on my resume and my attorney webpage lol?

I know I am tooting my own horn, but I would like to explain that I didn't only correctly identify the tracking lady. When someone who was NOT the tracking lady responded to me saying the comment I identified was NOT written by the tracking lady, I correctly said that they hadn't written the post so they wouldn't even know. I just thought they didn't sound like the same person. And *then* the tracking lady responded and confirmed she had written that comment!

THIS THREAD MUST REMAIN OPEN FOR ETERNITY so that this story can be passed down to future dcum generations.

I think it is just poor sportsmanship for the Baldoni supporters to continue to deny what has happened here. But truly, feel free to ask Jeff.

You aren’t an attorney.

I am. You're a bad sport and consistently deny reality in this thread.

Hi I’m a lawyer and I’m sort of new here! First time I’ve checked this thread in ages and ages, oh boy!! So what’s this all about? I heard Baldoni is just like Harvey Weinstein or bill cosby or similar and that he is trying to challenge a law that is saving women victims who report sexual assault from financial ruin by their abusers??! Wow. What a sicko!! I can’t believe anyone would support this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

DP but I think it's absurd to expect Blake or her legal team to publicly comment on this woman's lawsuit the day the news breaks, and I do think that would be performative and attention seeking if she did it.

The fact patterns are so similar that I think it's highly likely the stunt woman's lawsuit was at least in part inspired by Lively's. The questions of whether it is sexual harassment to push an actress (or stunt woman) to do unscripted nudity or intimacy haven't really been litigated before, and the question of when it is necessary for an intimacy coordinator to be on set and what their job is has also not really been legally explored. Until Lively's lawsuit. So to me there is no way that, at a minimum, the stunt woman's lawyers have not read Lively's complaint and explored the case law and the arguments she is leaning on in her case.

In that way, Lively's lawsuit *is* functioning as a form of support for the stunt woman, whether they ever touch base publicly or privately (and I expect they likely will because they are alleging such similar things). This is actually one of the main arguments in favor of someone like Lively, who is powerful and wealthy and has a lot of industry support, coming forward and calling out this behavior -- it can make it easier for people like this stunt woman, who have none of those resources, to come forward as well. So even if Lively never publicly says she supports this lawsuit, she has shown through her actions that she believes women on movie sets deserve better than what this stunt woman experienced on set. That is actually more meaningful than a public statement, IMO.

People can criticize Blake all they want but what if her lawsuit leads to more actresses on films sets speaking up when they are asked to do nudity that wasn't in the script, when the director or a scene partner pushes a form of intimacy that feels uncomfortable or bad to them without discussing it first or involving an IC? What if Blake's lawsuit leads to the industry adopting stricter industry standards for the filming of nudity and intimacy, and to a better understanding that "intimacy" can involve any scene where an actor's body is put in an intimate or compromised position (such as simulating childbirth or medical procedures)? I think all of that would be a net positive for Hollywood and for women in Hollywood. I think a lot of actresses, regardless of how they feel about Blake personally or how they view this particular case, would be happy to see those changes. And that's not even getting into the the retaliation aspects of her lawsuit, which I think are of particular interest to celebrity women at all levels who know how easy it is to harm their livelihoods and their personal lives by plugging into the online misogyny generator and focusing it on a famous woman.

This is what it means when we say "women helping women." This is why I think her lawsuit is important and fully support her in bringing these allegations and pursuing legal remedies. This could change things for women for the better in a way that hashtags and online info campaigns can't.

These are great point! I agree with you. Specifically, even if Lively doesn’t make some public statement of support right now which might unintentionally encourage Baldoni supporters to attack this victim also, Lively’s suit itself may already have helped in a way by bringing public attention to these nudity and intimacy issues.

I don’t really know if Lively should publicly support this victim and/or whether the victim would even want it. And I look at the terrible online beating that Dorsey is getting right now, and just have a lot of respect for former victims like her and Amber Heard who have come out in support of Lively despite the cost to them online. Nerves of steel, these women.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

I am PP who identified you as the poster who thought they were being tracked and I would just like to respond to you again.

I am not actually able to see or track your IP address from your posts. I think the site owner, Jeff, can do that, but I (and other regular commenters here) truly do not have access to that information.

I had a hunch that you wrote the long comment about "the law does not concave to benign actions" because from your much earlier post, you indicated in a comment that you were not posting from the US. And most of the people commenting in this thread do seem to be posting from the US. So when you wrote above that "if there is anything that I know about American law," it made me think that you weren't American. If I, an American, was going to say something like that, I'd just say "if there's anything I know about the law" because I'd just assume we were all talking about American law. Also, you are a good writer but your syntax seems like someone for whom English may be a second language, imho.

You can report this to Jeff if you are worried, and in fact I would love for you to do that because I would love the validation that I'm not pretending to be you. You can make a new post to the site owner by going to Website Feedback and clicking on "New Post." Website Feedback is here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/forums/show/19.page

However, Jeff might not like that very much because he closed the previous feedback post that had questions and complaints from this thread, and I really don't want this thread to get closed. There is also a contact form to email concerns to Jeff here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/contact-info

I hope that you are okay and are not *truly* worried that someone here is tracking you or everyone. Regular commenters here can't really do that. I just wanted to reassure you that wasn't really happening, I just made a really lucky (but educated) guess regarding who you were. But if you really are worried, you can check with Jeff. I am mostly writing this comment because you seemed very worried and upset, and I'm a little sorry I didn't reassure you earlier.

I'm not sure what other comments responding to you that you were referencing above, but in general I'm not positive which other comments you've written.

I don't know whether you'd mind posting here again to let people know that you are really a different person from me or let people know what Jeff says, if anything, but it's fine if you don't, and the Baldoni holdouts won't believe you anyway. To those pro-Baldoni holdouts: Try to adjust your worldview when it becomes clear that you made a mistake. Be a better person! You can do it!!! I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but many of you, like PP above on her legal comments, make some good points. Be smart! I'm not sock puppeting, and I'm not a PR rep or paid helper. I'm a lawyer who is really good at details. Let's get on the same page!

[Anonymous]

Off the rails . . .

[Anonymous]

Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Thank you for an actual legal update.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

Thank you, real lawyer mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

DP but I think it's absurd to expect Blake or her legal team to publicly comment on this woman's lawsuit the day the news breaks, and I do think that would be performative and attention seeking if she did it.

The fact patterns are so similar that I think it's highly likely the stunt woman's lawsuit was at least in part inspired by Lively's. The questions of whether it is sexual harassment to push an actress (or stunt woman) to do unscripted nudity or intimacy haven't really been litigated before, and the question of when it is necessary for an intimacy coordinator to be on set and what their job is has also not really been legally explored. Until Lively's lawsuit. So to me there is no way that, at a minimum, the stunt woman's lawyers have not read Lively's complaint and explored the case law and the arguments she is leaning on in her case.

In that way, Lively's lawsuit *is* functioning as a form of support for the stunt woman, whether they ever touch base publicly or privately (and I expect they likely will because they are alleging such similar things). This is actually one of the main arguments in favor of someone like Lively, who is powerful and wealthy and has a lot of industry support, coming forward and calling out this behavior -- it can make it easier for people like this stunt woman, who have none of those resources, to come forward as well. So even if Lively never publicly says she supports this lawsuit, she has shown through her actions that she believes women on movie sets deserve better than what this stunt woman experienced on set. That is actually more meaningful than a public statement, IMO.

People can criticize Blake all they want but what if her lawsuit leads to more actresses on films sets speaking up when they are asked to do nudity that wasn't in the script, when the director or a scene partner pushes a form of intimacy that feels uncomfortable or bad to them without discussing it first or involving an IC? What if Blake's lawsuit leads to the industry adopting stricter industry standards for the filming of nudity and intimacy, and to a better understanding that "intimacy" can involve any scene where an actor's body is put in an intimate or compromised position (such as simulating childbirth or medical procedures)? I think all of that would be a net positive for Hollywood and for women in Hollywood. I think a lot of actresses, regardless of how they feel about Blake personally or how they view this particular case, would be happy to see those changes. And that's not even getting into the the retaliation aspects of her lawsuit, which I think are of particular interest to celebrity women at all levels who know how easy it is to harm their livelihoods and their personal lives by plugging into the online misogyny generator and focusing it on a famous woman.

This is what it means when we say "women helping women." This is why I think her lawsuit is important and fully support her in bringing these allegations and pursuing legal remedies. This could change things for women for the better in a way that hashtags and online info campaigns can't.

These are great point! I agree with you. Specifically, even if Lively doesn’t make some public statement of support right now which might unintentionally encourage Baldoni supporters to attack this victim also, Lively’s suit itself may already have helped in a way by bringing public attention to these nudity and intimacy issues.

I don’t really know if Lively should publicly support this victim and/or whether the victim would even want it. And I look at the terrible online beating that Dorsey is getting right now, and just have a lot of respect for former victims like her and Amber Heard who have come out in support of Lively despite the cost to them online. Nerves of steel, these women.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

I am PP who identified you as the poster who thought they were being tracked and I would just like to respond to you again.

I am not actually able to see or track your IP address from your posts. I think the site owner, Jeff, can do that, but I (and other regular commenters here) truly do not have access to that information.

I had a hunch that you wrote the long comment about "the law does not concave to benign actions" because from your much earlier post, you indicated in a comment that you were not posting from the US. And most of the people commenting in this thread do seem to be posting from the US. So when you wrote above that "if there is anything that I know about American law," it made me think that you weren't American. If I, an American, was going to say something like that, I'd just say "if there's anything I know about the law" because I'd just assume we were all talking about American law. Also, you are a good writer but your syntax seems like someone for whom English may be a second language, imho.

You can report this to Jeff if you are worried, and in fact I would love for you to do that because I would love the validation that I'm not pretending to be you. You can make a new post to the site owner by going to Website Feedback and clicking on "New Post." Website Feedback is here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/forums/show/19.page

However, Jeff might not like that very much because he closed the previous feedback post that had questions and complaints from this thread, and I really don't want this thread to get closed. There is also a contact form to email concerns to Jeff here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/contact-info

I hope that you are okay and are not *truly* worried that someone here is tracking you or everyone. Regular commenters here can't really do that. I just wanted to reassure you that wasn't really happening, I just made a really lucky (but educated) guess regarding who you were. But if you really are worried, you can check with Jeff. I am mostly writing this comment because you seemed very worried and upset, and I'm a little sorry I didn't reassure you earlier.

I'm not sure what other comments responding to you that you were referencing above, but in general I'm not positive which other comments you've written.

I don't know whether you'd mind posting here again to let people know that you are really a different person from me or let people know what Jeff says, if anything, but it's fine if you don't, and the Baldoni holdouts won't believe you anyway. To those pro-Baldoni holdouts: Try to adjust your worldview when it becomes clear that you made a mistake. Be a better person! You can do it!!! I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but many of you, like PP above on her legal comments, make some good points. Be smart! I'm not sock puppeting, and I'm not a PR rep or paid helper. I'm a lawyer who is really good at details. Let's get on the same page!

.

Sigh. Didn’t you make any court listener recordings on protective orders to keep you busy this evening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm just catching up: so a crazy BL poster is posing as a crazy JB poster, and planning to complain to Jeff about having their IP address tracked in an effort to get this thread shut down? Makes sense, since BL posters are the only ones who actually want this thread shut down. It was only a matter of time before they started posing as other posters.

No. I'm the poster who identified, completely out of the blue, a post from the lady who thought I was tracking her posts today from one post out of hundreds, and THIS THREAD MUST NEVER BE SHUT DOWN. This thread will carry my name forward to future generations of online sleuthing! Like, should I put this on my resume and my attorney webpage lol?

I know I am tooting my own horn, but I would like to explain that I didn't only correctly identify the tracking lady. When someone who was NOT the tracking lady responded to me saying the comment I identified was NOT written by the tracking lady, I correctly said that they hadn't written the post so they wouldn't even know. I just thought they didn't sound like the same person. And *then* the tracking lady responded and confirmed she had written that comment!

THIS THREAD MUST REMAIN OPEN FOR ETERNITY so that this story can be passed down to future dcum generations.

I think it is just poor sportsmanship for the Baldoni supporters to continue to deny what has happened here. But truly, feel free to ask Jeff.

You aren’t an attorney.

I am. You're a bad sport and consistently deny reality in this thread.

Hi I’m a lawyer and I’m sort of new here! First time I’ve checked this thread in ages and ages, oh boy!! So what’s this all about? I heard Baldoni is just like Harvey Weinstein or bill cosby or similar and that he is trying to challenge a law that is saving women victims who report sexual assault from financial ruin by their abusers??! Wow. What a sicko!! I can’t believe anyone would support this guy.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni. The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni. The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet.

I imagine it feels like someone who’s been wrongly accused and believes in the constitution. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni. The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet.

He probably really regrets that schtick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni. The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet.

I imagine it feels like someone who’s been wrongly accused and believes in the constitution. Just a thought.

"Listen to women ... unless it means I can't file a $400M defamation suit against a woman who asked me to stop doing things that I signed a contract agreeing not to do, and also not retaliate against her for it -- in that case we totally shouldn't listen to women."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni. The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet.

He probably really regrets that schtick.

I doubt he regrets it but I’m sure he’s disappointed that his efforts to do something good are being used against him. But Karens gonna Karen, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, as if those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier. Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni. The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet.

I imagine it feels like someone who’s been wrongly accused and believes in the constitution. Just a thought.

"Listen to women ... unless it means I can't file a $400M defamation suit against a woman who asked me to stop doing things that I signed a contract agreeing not to do, and also not retaliate against her for it -- in that case we totally shouldn't listen to women."

Listen to women unless it’s a woman who used her power to bully me, sideline me in my own movie, file a sham lawsuit and a fake subpoena to illegally obtain text messages, and misrepresent those text messages in the press to ruin me. By all means don’t believe those women.