Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I think some of his rulings are unusual, but not others (e.g., the fact NAG left any possibility the NYT suit wouldn't get dismissed was bizarre; whatever the chat boards said, pretty much every lawyer I know thought the suit was borderline frivilous/sanction worthy). I do think she's giving a pro-JB gloss to her interpretations of filings -- unclear if she means to or is just unconsciously biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is actually how the Lively team intended this category to be interpreted, “but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer Party.” With that latitude, I think WF say none.

I think that's exactly what Lively was asking for. I think you are interpreting "on behalf of or at the request of" WAY too narrowly (and more narrowly than Liman) if you don't think this is what she was asking for. As part of a contract or as a subcontractor or implementer of a contract would meet this definition, as would bots controlled by a party meeting the previous definition.

Your definition is even more narrow. I doubt there are any such “contracts.”

And I quoted the exact language used by Liman so there isn’t any interpretation in there. But as a responding attorney, and I am an experienced litigator, I would feel very comfortable interpreting that phrase narrowly, given how Liman described it in his Order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

Oh look, it’s our favorite “turtles all the way down” rabid Lively supporter trying to pose as someone “neutral.” How cute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

Oh look, it’s our favorite “turtles all the way down” rabid Lively supporter trying to pose as someone “neutral.” How cute.

PP who posed question, to be clear, I wrote the bolded parts and I am pro-Lively and not neutral. But the person who responded to you isn't neutral, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

Oh look, it’s our favorite “turtles all the way down” rabid Lively supporter trying to pose as someone “neutral.” How cute.

PP who posed question, to be clear, I wrote the bolded parts and I am pro-Lively and not neutral. But the person who responded to you isn't neutral, either.

I'm PP. I think at this point, it's going to be hard to find someone who's neutral, so I'm fine with anyone weighing in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

Oh look, it’s our favorite “turtles all the way down” rabid Lively supporter trying to pose as someone “neutral.” How cute.

PP who posed question, to be clear, I wrote the bolded parts and I am pro-Lively and not neutral. But the person who responded to you isn't neutral, either.

So you decide to criticize me for not being neutral without disclosing that his are one of the most ardent and active Lovely posters on the board. Very on brand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

Oh look, it’s our favorite “turtles all the way down” rabid Lively supporter trying to pose as someone “neutral.” How cute.

PP who posed question, to be clear, I wrote the bolded parts and I am pro-Lively and not neutral. But the person who responded to you isn't neutral, either.

So you decide to criticize me for not being neutral without disclosing that his are one of the most ardent and active Lovely posters on the board. Very on brand

Honestly, I thought it was clear that I wasn't neutral because I was calling you out in no uncertain terms. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I originally wrote a longer response that specified that I was pro-Lively, but I cut that part out before I posted because I thought people would complain I was being too longwinded ha.

I originally didn't respond at all because she specified she wanted neutral input. So I let that slide by until I saw your biased answer.

[Anonymous]

The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-JB and I feel like notactuallygolden is really bad at predicting things even though I enjoy her videos. What's the disconnect here? Is Liman acting unusually for a judge? Is notactuallygolden just not as knowledgeable about federal courts? Is notactuallygolden subconsciously giving best-case-scenarios interpretations of Justin's side because he's more believable/her followers are generally more pro-JB?

I don't know where to get honest answers to these questions, because I feel like the pro-JB side will bite my head off for questioning her, while the pro-Lively side hates Freedman and can't see things objectively either. Any neutral lawyers here who can weigh in?

As a long time practicing litigator, it’s Liman. His rulings aren’t wrong, but they are unusual. We saw it from the beginning with his refusal to grant assented-to extensions.

I am pretty sure that PP responding above is a Baldoni supporter and not "neutral," which is what you asked for. I think saying that "The reason I've been calling everything wrong is wholly attributable to a renegade judge (who all but telegraphs some of his opinions in advance), and not to my own bad judgement" is a somewhat convenient take. I have practiced under judges like Liman before who keep to deadlines, don't extend the parties too much rope to hang themselves on, and are pretty no nonsense. Liman is pretty on brand for a federal judge in a busy district.

Strong disagree and original poster, google reviews of Louis Liman. There are sites that allow lawyers to do this and Liman was not well reviewed before he issued a single order in the Lively/Baldoni matter. Has a reputation with siding with the establishment.

Then shouldn't he be siding with Baldoni the harasser here, and not the harassee? He is a male judge after all. Conspiracy theories all the way down.

Oh look, it’s our favorite “turtles all the way down” rabid Lively supporter trying to pose as someone “neutral.” How cute.

PP who posed question, to be clear, I wrote the bolded parts and I am pro-Lively and not neutral. But the person who responded to you isn't neutral, either.

So you decide to criticize me for not being neutral without disclosing that his are one of the most ardent and active Lovely posters on the board. Very on brand

Honestly, I thought it was clear that I wasn't neutral because I was calling you out in no uncertain terms. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I originally wrote a longer response that specified that I was pro-Lively, but I cut that part out before I posted because I thought people would complain I was being too longwinded ha.

I originally didn't respond at all because she specified she wanted neutral input. So I let that slide by until I saw your biased answer.

I practiced in federal courts for over two decades. Never once saw a judge deny a first request for extension that was assented-to, not once. Never saw a judge take such a hard line on a motion to dismiss either. No bias, just observations. I never said his decisions were wrongly decided, although I’d take a swing at a appeal on the defamation counts if my client had unlimited funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

If the jury doesn’t find her credible on one issue, they are unlikely to find her credible on any issue. Personally, I am not concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

If the jury doesn’t find her credible on one issue, they are unlikely to find her credible on any issue. Personally, I am not concerned.

Hang on, just bookmarking this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

If the jury doesn’t find her credible on one issue, they are unlikely to find her credible on any issue. Personally, I am not concerned.

Hang on, just bookmarking this.

Of course you would, psycho.