Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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."

Maybe we should all listen to Taylor Swift

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Listen to women ... unless they have filed amicus briefs against us. In that case, eff those women!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Let’s let liman decide.

Freedman is holding Blake to her actions. File a lawsuit and try to ruin people’s lives and there might be consequences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

[Anonymous]

Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

It’s a bad law. The goal is to discourage the accused from bringing a defamation claim at all by threatening treble damages should they lose. They’re betting it’s a risk more will be afraid to take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

Not sure what your reference is about because I find RR repulsive. Just commenting on what a slog this entire thread is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

It’s a bad law. The goal is to discourage the accused from bringing a defamation claim at all by threatening treble damages should they lose. They’re betting it’s a risk more will be afraid to take.

Yes. Because what harassers really need is to be able to weaponize defamation claims whether they were defamed or not. In the present case, Freedman is refusing to even answer questions about how some of the parties defamed his clients, or produce any evidence of the supposed statements causing that defamation. Yet Baldoni still sued for $400 million. He hasn't produced docs to show that extent of damages. Freedman is just using this as a tool to scare the parties and make them settle. He's just a bully with a law degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

Not sure what your reference is about because I find RR repulsive. Just commenting on what a slog this entire thread is.

No one is forcing you to post here.

Or are they? If someone has taken you hostage and is forcing you to post, start signing your posts, as a signal, and the person who is tracking everyone's location from their comments will send help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

It’s a bad law. The goal is to discourage the accused from bringing a defamation claim at all by threatening treble damages should they lose. They’re betting it’s a risk more will be afraid to take.

Yes. Because what harassers really need is to be able to weaponize defamation claims whether they were defamed or not. In the present case, Freedman is refusing to even answer questions about how some of the parties defamed his clients, or produce any evidence of the supposed statements causing that defamation. Yet Baldoni still sued for $400 million. He hasn't produced docs to show that extent of damages. Freedman is just using this as a tool to scare the parties and make them settle. He's just a bully with a law degree.

Blake is the bully, but that’s been well established. Justin has released plenty of evidence, which is why the public is largely on his side. It’s the only law of its kind in the 50 states and that’s because it’s a bad law and it’s unconstitutional. Don’t be surprised when it’s overturned. It might not be by Liman but it will be overturned. And your rage baiting isn’t going to stop that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

No, but those posts are tedious.