Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake Lively fans must be in a state of euphoria today. All two dozen of them.

We are fans of justice and enemies of misogyny and completely bogus and retaliatory lawsuits filed against women who complain of harassment. You should try it. But you are probably too busy making fun of Lively's appearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake Lively fans must be in a state of euphoria today. All two dozen of them.

Well that's an improvement since everyone has been saying it was only one!

lolol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Does anyone think Baldoni et al will appeal? I think that there will be a number of 3rd parties who might want to help appeal the decision against the NYT.

I would love to see him appeal the defamation claims, I think there is an argument that what she did went behind the litigation privilege, particularly in light of the Van Zan stuff.

I don’t disagree but I think he needs a real defamation lawyer for that appeal.

I feel like typically with a loss like this, reps would be out there saying they intend to appeal, but silence.

Feels like some shuffling may be going on behind the scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not realize until today that Liman is a nepobaby. Dad was Arthur Liman, a very famous lawyer for his role in investigating the Iran Contra affair among other things.

Me too. Total nepo baby!

More positing that the real problem here is the judge, lol.

FWIW, I believe I read somewhere that although he was a Trump appointee, he was essentially one of the judges from the "democratic" set of that group, though I don't know whether it's true or not and I don't know the judge's political affiliations.

Where did I say that? I always know it’s you when you post because you make huge leaps. That’s also why so many people challenge your legal credibility. Most lawyers have better analytical skills.

In any event, I don’t think the judge was conspiring or anything, and he certainly seems qualified. But it does look like he probably got some career boosts from his industry famous father. But I don’t think that means his decisions are bad etc. Just noticing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

Yeah, I assume they’re debating what to do. And I have no basis to say this other than hearing about it in other defamation cases, but I strongly suspect they are getting offers from activists who want them to appeal the NYT case for reasons that have nothing to do with Blake

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Does anyone think Baldoni et al will appeal? I think that there will be a number of 3rd parties who might want to help appeal the decision against the NYT.

I would love to see him appeal the defamation claims, I think there is an argument that what she did went behind the litigation privilege, particularly in light of the Van Zan stuff.

I don’t disagree but I think he needs a real defamation lawyer for that appeal.

I feel like typically with a loss like this, reps would be out there saying they intend to appeal, but silence.

Feels like some shuffling may be going on behind the scenes.

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not realize until today that Liman is a nepobaby. Dad was Arthur Liman, a very famous lawyer for his role in investigating the Iran Contra affair among other things.

Me too. Total nepo baby!

More positing that the real problem here is the judge, lol.

FWIW, I believe I read somewhere that although he was a Trump appointee, he was essentially one of the judges from the "democratic" set of that group, though I don't know whether it's true or not and I don't know the judge's political affiliations.

Where did I say that? I always know it’s you when you post because you make huge leaps. That’s also why so many people challenge your legal credibility. Most lawyers have better analytical skills.

In any event, I don’t think the judge was conspiring or anything, and he certainly seems qualified. But it does look like he probably got some career boosts from his industry famous father. But I don’t think that means his decisions are bad etc. Just noticing

You just called the judge that issued a decision you very much don't like a "Total nepo baby!" and you think that is not a statement that he lacks certain qualifications to be a judge? "Nah I totes stand behind this nepo baby judge!" is what you were thinking?

Sure, Jan.

PS: I thought Baldoni's claims would get dismissed with prejudice and you didn't so I'll put my "analytical skills" up against yours any day. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Freedman said anything about this?

He is not quoted in major outlets like CNN, Daily Mail, NY Times, and People. All say they reached out to Baldoni's team and got no comment.

What are the chances that Freedman steps down after this, and/or Sarowitz switches firms, with a thanks to Freedman for all the PR help? It would depend on how Freedman has been posturing the case to them. If he's been telling them leave to amend is freely granted and their chances of losing almost all their claims for good were small, they might be feeling betrayed right now. Plus, given the Daily Main reporter discovery that was just worked out, Freedman is practically a witness in the case now. Interesting that it's taking such a long time for a statement to come out from Freedman.

Reupping this from earlier since others are wondering about it too, now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Freedman said anything about this?

He is not quoted in major outlets like CNN, Daily Mail, NY Times, and People. All say they reached out to Baldoni's team and got no comment.

What are the chances that Freedman steps down after this, and/or Sarowitz switches firms, with a thanks to Freedman for all the PR help? It would depend on how Freedman has been posturing the case to them. If he's been telling them leave to amend is freely granted and their chances of losing almost all their claims for good were small, they might be feeling betrayed right now. Plus, given the Daily Main reporter discovery that was just worked out, Freedman is practically a witness in the case now. Interesting that it's taking such a long time for a statement to come out from Freedman.

Reupping this from earlier since others are wondering about it too, now.

I'm also curious how he sold it to Sarowitz, who seems, uh, intense. My initial comment when JB sued NYT was he has no case but this is effective as a PR move to get his story out in a more credible way ( he's not just defending, he's suing her!). And the extortion stuff was more of the same, a way to air out every bad (but in no way unlawful) thing she did on set. So yeah, I'm curious if this strategy was made clear to his clients, or if they thought they had an actual legal case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not realize until today that Liman is a nepobaby. Dad was Arthur Liman, a very famous lawyer for his role in investigating the Iran Contra affair among other things.

Me too. Total nepo baby!

More positing that the real problem here is the judge, lol.

FWIW, I believe I read somewhere that although he was a Trump appointee, he was essentially one of the judges from the "democratic" set of that group, though I don't know whether it's true or not and I don't know the judge's political affiliations.

Where did I say that? I always know it’s you when you post because you make huge leaps. That’s also why so many people challenge your legal credibility. Most lawyers have better analytical skills.

In any event, I don’t think the judge was conspiring or anything, and he certainly seems qualified. But it does look like he probably got some career boosts from his industry famous father. But I don’t think that means his decisions are bad etc. Just noticing

You just called the judge that issued a decision you very much don't like a "Total nepo baby!" and you think that is not a statement that he lacks certain qualifications to be a judge? "Nah I totes stand behind this nepo baby judge!" is what you were thinking?

Sure, Jan.

PS: I thought Baldoni's claims would get dismissed with prejudice and you didn't so I'll put my "analytical skills" up against yours any day. Just saying.

One can be a nepo baby and still be good at what they do. Sophia Coppola comes to mind. Nicholas Cage also. But yeah, most trial judges don’t have industry famous dads and brothers in Hollywood. It’s a fact. He’s nepo but he’s fine and I have no issues with his qualifications

[Anonymous]

Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Freedman said anything about this?

He is not quoted in major outlets like CNN, Daily Mail, NY Times, and People. All say they reached out to Baldoni's team and got no comment.

What are the chances that Freedman steps down after this, and/or Sarowitz switches firms, with a thanks to Freedman for all the PR help? It would depend on how Freedman has been posturing the case to them. If he's been telling them leave to amend is freely granted and their chances of losing almost all their claims for good were small, they might be feeling betrayed right now. Plus, given the Daily Main reporter discovery that was just worked out, Freedman is practically a witness in the case now. Interesting that it's taking such a long time for a statement to come out from Freedman.

Reupping this from earlier since others are wondering about it too, now.

I'm also curious how he sold it to Sarowitz, who seems, uh, intense. My initial comment when JB sued NYT was he has no case but this is effective as a PR move to get his story out in a more credible way ( he's not just defending, he's suing her!). And the extortion stuff was more of the same, a way to air out every bad (but in no way unlawful) thing she did on set. So yeah, I'm curious if this strategy was made clear to his clients, or if they thought they had an actual legal case.

What's almost a little funny in an "Oh that Bryan Freedman!" kind of way is that so many people were on Lively's side when she first filed the complaint in December. And then Freedman filed Baldoni's own complaint, and the statement of alternative facts, and the tape, and so many people started hating Lively. But now Judge Liman has issued a decision that dismisses all of Baldoni's complaint and allows him to attempt to replead only a small part of it. So, legally, it is almost-but-not-quite like we are back in December 2024, but many people still hate Lively.

Your complaint was absolute bullsh!t, but Mr. Baldoni, your fans still love you. The cake is a lie, but Baldoni supporters shall continue to play the game as though the cake is real. It's a neat little hat trick that Freedman was able to perform for Baldoni that he probably should be grateful for whatever happens, at least until it backfires.

Also, Freedman created that hat trick, but he also created a Baldoni fandom that does things like writes in amicus briefs and perhaps goes a bit off the deep end in reacting at times, as now some of them are reacting against Freedman. Baldoni has made absolutely no attempt to control or guide the reactions of his "fans" to date and steer them away from their craziest impulses, which is something he might want to think about very soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

This sub forum is full of email job fed spinsters and SAHMs with vivid imaginations.

[Anonymous]

If plantation Barbie had such an airtight winning case and Justin’s counters were so frivolous—why did Taylor and Travis cut Blake and Ryan out of their lives? And no A-listers in general want to be anywhere near them?