Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

Yeah, this is some fantasy world they are living in, I don't know what to tell you.

Us and the everyone besides the two of you (joking, but not by much) Read the comments section on any recent article about Blake, nearly all are Justin supporters. Gen Z, in particular, despises Blake. Not good at all for her figure marketability.

What does this have to do with vindicating him?

Practically no one believes any of her allegations. Outside of the one or two fanatics here.

Call me an optimist, but I still believe that at some point you guys are going to catch up. Not all of you. But some. And other people who aren't involved now will see (I think) her vindication at trial and will grok it as a win for her.

If Gottlieb doesn't feel like they have a good shot of getting through summary judgement and a good shot at trial, this would be a good time to settle. (I've been against settlement until the MTDs, because that complaint was a mess and Lively had nothing to lose at dismissal.) If she doesn't settle, I'd take it as a decent sign they have good evidence and a good shot at trial, and I'd trust Gottlieb a hell of a lot more than Freedman on his representations of that.

I just saw the Freedman interview with Megyn Kelly where she ask him why not settle, Justin has already won in the court of public opinion. He says no, Justin wants a legal vindication. I think this goes to at least summary judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

Yeah, this is some fantasy world they are living in, I don't know what to tell you.

Us and the everyone besides the two of you (joking, but not by much) Read the comments section on any recent article about Blake, nearly all are Justin supporters. Gen Z, in particular, despises Blake. Not good at all for her figure marketability.

What does this have to do with vindicating him?

Practically no one believes any of her allegations. Outside of the one or two fanatics here.

Call me an optimist, but I still believe that at some point you guys are going to catch up. Not all of you. But some. And other people who aren't involved now will see (I think) her vindication at trial and will grok it as a win for her.

If Gottlieb doesn't feel like they have a good shot of getting through summary judgement and a good shot at trial, this would be a good time to settle. (I've been against settlement until the MTDs, because that complaint was a mess and Lively had nothing to lose at dismissal.) If she doesn't settle, I'd take it as a decent sign they have good evidence and a good shot at trial, and I'd trust Gottlieb a hell of a lot more than Freedman on his representations of that.

Curious why you feel this way? Gottlieb apparently counseled (or failed to counsel against) Blake to bring what was at best a very thin SH case. It was always going to be a thin case (no quid pro quo, very mild ‘hostile environment’ if at all) and apparently didn’t advise her to consider her claims could be discounted by rolling cameras around her, and her own unorthodox text messaging (‘always spicy’). This case has cost her millions and totally destroyed her reputation. Meanwhile Freedman rehabilitated his clients rep in 10 days. I mean, really?? You think Gottlieb is the better lawyer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

I really just see this differently, and see Freedman's whole countersuit as a bullying attempt to shut Lively up and scare her away from pursuing her lawsuit. I don't disagree with you that Freedman did a great job in figuring out what Baldoni's side of the story should be, and how to put it together and get it out to people. I am all on board with him releasing the video footage showing his side of the story I guess, although maybe technically he's not supposed to do that.

What I'm really not on board with is the whole $400M defamation suit filed against her, where defamation suits are tools that abusers use to shut up women who have accused men of sexual harassment. And now that suit has been absolutely demolished at the dismissal stage, along with most of Baldoni's damage claims, and that huge looming price tag that was on there just looks like a big tool that was used to scare and threaten her. Same as Freedman claiming he wanted to depose her in Madison Square Gardens for money, or him trying to scare her now. He's a giant bully who may be great on PR, but part of what makes him great on PR is the fact that he's a bully. And on the legal side of lawyering, it appears to me that he sucks very hard.

Something I read about Freedman a while ago that affected how I perceived him since was the fact that he said that he wanted to be an entertainment lawyer and needed clients, and the only way he could attract the kinds of clients he wanted was by representing people who wanted to sue them until the people he was suing wanted him for their lawyer. That's kind of how it worked out with Travis Flores, the Three Feet Apart kid with CF who hired Freedman to sue Baldoni, then died, and then Baldoni hired Freedman and here we are.

What people are missing is that it was neither bullying nor sloppy pleading. Defamation and extortion were long shots but they weren’t brought to bully Blake. They were brought to get Justin’s side out there in a protected way. The countersuit gave Justin litigation privilege to share his side of the story. Blake would’ve found a way to muzzle him otherwise. It was basically his CRD complaint. If you’ve been paying attention you’ll know the only reason Blake filed the CRD was for litigation privilege to protect her against defamation for her smear campaign against Justin. So no, Justin’s lawsuit wasn’t out of the abuser’s playbook, it was out of Blake’s playbook.

Excellent point. Thank you! Nice to have smart people on this chain

It *is* nice to have smart people on this chain, even if they are not the people you agree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

Yeah, this is some fantasy world they are living in, I don't know what to tell you.

Us and the everyone besides the two of you (joking, but not by much) Read the comments section on any recent article about Blake, nearly all are Justin supporters. Gen Z, in particular, despises Blake. Not good at all for her figure marketability.

What does this have to do with vindicating him?

Practically no one believes any of her allegations. Outside of the one or two fanatics here.

Call me an optimist, but I still believe that at some point you guys are going to catch up. Not all of you. But some. And other people who aren't involved now will see (I think) her vindication at trial and will grok it as a win for her.

If Gottlieb doesn't feel like they have a good shot of getting through summary judgement and a good shot at trial, this would be a good time to settle. (I've been against settlement until the MTDs, because that complaint was a mess and Lively had nothing to lose at dismissal.) If she doesn't settle, I'd take it as a decent sign they have good evidence and a good shot at trial, and I'd trust Gottlieb a hell of a lot more than Freedman on his representations of that.

Curious why you feel this way? Gottlieb apparently counseled (or failed to counsel against) Blake to bring what was at best a very thin SH case. It was always going to be a thin case (no quid pro quo, very mild ‘hostile environment’ if at all) and apparently didn’t advise her to consider her claims could be discounted by rolling cameras around her, and her own unorthodox text messaging (‘always spicy’). This case has cost her millions and totally destroyed her reputation. Meanwhile Freedman rehabilitated his clients rep in 10 days. I mean, really?? You think Gottlieb is the better lawyer?

Dp, Gotttlieb is making bank though. So many motions filed . . .and not even done with discovery.seriously, he likely got her out of paying significant damages but agree with your larger point, she wouldn’t ever have been on the hook for them if she never filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

I didn’t say it’s a ground for recusal but I would bet a lot of money they have socialized together. I know maybe slightly more a dozen former Supreme Court clerks, either friends or colleagues and they all know other clerks for the same justices even if decades apart, from social events thrown by or for the Justice.

I think you overstate how common it is, at least at the trial court level. Most Supreme Court clerks become appellate specialists and rarely see the inside of a district court. Plus, it’s a very small group, a decade’s worth of clerks for the entire court is only around 360 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

I didn’t say it’s a ground for recusal but I would bet a lot of money they have socialized together. I know maybe slightly more a dozen former Supreme Court clerks, either friends or colleagues and they all know other clerks for the same justices even if decades apart, from social events thrown by or for the Justice.

I think you overstate how common it is, at least at the trial court level. Most Supreme Court clerks become appellate specialists and rarely see the inside of a district court. Plus, it’s a very small group, a decade’s worth of clerks for the entire court is only around 360 people.

DP

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.[

Whoa. I didn’t know that. I agree with this. Clerking for the same US SUPREME COURT JUSTICE is a VERY VERY exclusive club. Not sure the PP appreciates this.

Curious why Liman didn’t consider a recusal given the connections. I’m not saying he didn’t decide fairly or that he did anything inappropriate, but there are definitely some connections that are not entirely typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

I didn’t say it’s a ground for recusal but I would bet a lot of money they have socialized together. I know maybe slightly more a dozen former Supreme Court clerks, either friends or colleagues and they all know other clerks for the same justices even if decades apart, from social events thrown by or for the Justice.

I think you overstate how common it is, at least at the trial court level. Most Supreme Court clerks become appellate specialists and rarely see the inside of a district court. Plus, it’s a very small group, a decade’s worth of clerks for the entire court is only around 360 people.

The bolded is not true, it's very common for Scotus clerks to wind up as federal prosecutors who of course spend tons of time in district court. Many also become appellate specialists but it's not "most."

Liman himself was in the US Attorneys office for SDNY at one point. And his private practice was certainly not limited to appellate work.

[Anonymous]

I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

I didn’t say it’s a ground for recusal but I would bet a lot of money they have socialized together. I know maybe slightly more a dozen former Supreme Court clerks, either friends or colleagues and they all know other clerks for the same justices even if decades apart, from social events thrown by or for the Justice.

I think you overstate how common it is, at least at the trial court level. Most Supreme Court clerks become appellate specialists and rarely see the inside of a district court. Plus, it’s a very small group, a decade’s worth of clerks for the entire court is only around 360 people.

Ridiculous. You don’t recuse just because one of the counsel in your case clerked for the same judge. In some districts there would be constant recusals because the counsel and judges all clerked in the same district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

I didn’t say it’s a ground for recusal but I would bet a lot of money they have socialized together. I know maybe slightly more a dozen former Supreme Court clerks, either friends or colleagues and they all know other clerks for the same justices even if decades apart, from social events thrown by or for the Justice.

I think you overstate how common it is, at least at the trial court level. Most Supreme Court clerks become appellate specialists and rarely see the inside of a district court. Plus, it’s a very small group, a decade’s worth of clerks for the entire court is only around 360 people.

Ridiculous. You don’t recuse just because one of the counsel in your case clerked for the same judge. In some districts there would be constant recusals because the counsel and judges all clerked in the same district.

Firstly, I did not mention recusal.

Second, former Supreme Court clerks for the same justice have a different relationship than other clerks. They just do.

My point was only if there were any preference for the Lively team by Liman, this is far more likely to be the cause than a tenuous relationship between Ryan/Blake and Doug Liman. And honestly, Liman’s response to the Swift allegations Is where I thought there might be bias, and then the crime fraud Exception (yes, I know that was Jones, but it also implicates Lively). A good number of judges would have called for an evidentiary hearing in either circumstance.

Struck a chord though as it got multiple responses from the same person.

[Anonymous]

This is dumb. No, PP, I have never heard of a judge recusing because they clerked for the same supreme Court justice as one of the attorneys. In certain districts.

But in any case, the Baldoni complaint was horribly written and badly argued, they refused to amend even at the judge's strong urging, and Liman's decision is fair. He could maybe have let one defamation claim (the one against Reynolds) proceed, but to do so he would have to very generously give a lot of leeway -- between the group pleading issue, the failure to clearly plead the elements of defamation (or anything else), and the refusal to fix these issues on time, it is not at all surprising that Liman chose to dismiss with prejudice. It is not the judge's job to make your case for you, and when you've already declined an opportunity to amend and cure known defects, why would he bend over backwards to facilitate your claims? Baldoni is not an indigent plaintiff -- he is well resources and his attorneys are well compensated.

This has nothing to do with bias by Liman (who has also come down hard on Lively regarding errors and deadlines) and everything to do with Baldoni having bad facts and weak legal reasoning. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

[Anonymous]

Your boy Freedman has been so completely stupid that you’re looking for a scapegoat! So typical!!! What is it you usually say? You’re so obvious.