Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you explain, because I thought the Swift stuff was irrelevant drama and the crime fraud exception was a huge reach (the crimes being false imprisonment sitting in a conference room and cyber crimes for an employer looking at a work phone). I do think Liman took extra digs at Freedman in the Swift thing that weren't necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

[Anonymous]

All I can say on this is, oh hell yes, please please please send Freedman the vibes needed for him to file a recusal motion on Liman. Maybe while Freedman is still figuring out the deets of what claims to put in his amended complaint.

*gets popcorn*