Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Popcorn Planet guy just filed something against Blake in Florida.

Interested to know if Lively will try to get it moved to Liman.

There are a few new motions on the NY docket. Many many letters and motions calling out the tactics. I know they will fall on deaf ears, but still good for them.

It seems to take a few days for the non-parties' stuff to be posted, so they are still posting responses to Hudson's letter that were apparently written prior to Liman's ruling. He rules quickly for Lively or against CC and when CCs make well-reasoned motions he sits on them until Lively has a chance to respond, then gives Lively what she wants before the CCs can answer.

I had previously posted it seemed unfair that he was giving the pro se CCs just two business days to respond to Lively's oppositions, but since Lively withdrew them, the CCs ended up getting less than one business day to respond (Hudson's letter posted Saturday July 26 and Liman ruled first thing Monday mooting them. So efficient!). Now the CCs are pointing out they also asked for a PO ruling that Lively cannot issue further subpoenas without a court order, since Lively's withdrawal is open ended. Liman should honestly do it for his own sanity so Lively doesn't clog up the docket with dozens more of these.

I wonder if Liman would rule differently if one of these CCs retained a lawyer who also clerked for the same Supreme Court Justice he did. That would be fun to watch. Or do lawyers have an unspoken code -- do not take on any cases that would shake up the incestuous circle they're all part of?

[Anonymous]

The hoaxers Blake and Ryan have lost. Any other take is spin.

[Anonymous]

Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Of course he does, even though Gottlieb’s timeline makes zero sense, and it sounds like all they will be getting is a giant privilege log. Liman is so off the mark here, I’d consider appealing it in Liner’s shoes, but probably not worth the effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

Does party affiliation matter? Trump only appoints the unqualified, those with some connection to him, or those likely to rule in his favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

Does party affiliation matter? Trump only appoints the unqualified, those with some connection to him, or those likely to rule in his favor.

I don't know? That's why I asked. I guess to me there's a difference between Trump appointing someone who is a Republican crony and him just mindlessly approving a suite of federal judges (including some Democrats) as long as he gets some of the judges he wants in power. I have no idea how this works, but for some reason I assumed that's how the process could have went and Liman was in the latter category. Neither is great, I just want to know the distinction for myself.

[Anonymous]

Just an explanation— Blake’s “untraceable campaign”. Discovery is limited, with respect to Freedman’s firm, to the period after the Complaint was filed. So, she apparently has the gift of ESP and knew she would suffer future harm at the time she filed her complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

Does party affiliation matter? Trump only appoints the unqualified, those with some connection to him, or those likely to rule in his favor.

I don't know? That's why I asked. I guess to me there's a difference between Trump appointing someone who is a Republican crony and him just mindlessly approving a suite of federal judges (including some Democrats) as long as he gets some of the judges he wants in power. I have no idea how this works, but for some reason I assumed that's how the process could have went and Liman was in the latter category. Neither is great, I just want to know the distinction for myself.

The filibuster doesn’t apply to judicial nominations, so the party in power need not make any concessions to the minority party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Some of it? He will give her a majority of it, then head to the sauna with Gottlieb.

Seriously, Gottlieb made no sense today but Liman asked not a single probing question. He’s just a not very good judge, living up to what one would expect from a Trump appointed nepo baby.

Isn't he a Democrat though? He's just bending over for Gottlieb because of their incestuous Supreme Court ties, no? (My questions aren't intended to be snarky, I'm actually asking.)

He had a prior decision overturned by the appeals court because he failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the prevailing party. He’s been less than impressive here. I don’t think it’s solely because he liked Gottlieb, he’s just not a very good judge.

The precedent the judge would be setting here would be crazy and inconsistent with the deference given to the attorney client relationship. Lively has not a smidgen of evidence to support this deviation from precedent. It’s jaw dropping the judge is even considering this.

I think it's really disappointing this isn't be fairly covered by the press, or that serious lawyers aren't doing more to raise attention to this in the public eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Live tweet of today's hearing on the subpoena for Liner Freedman's media comms: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/195062088861893445544

Interesting stuff. Liman seems inclined to give some of it.

Not sure what happened to link but more reasonable version here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1mdga0p/judge_rules_motion_to_compel_bfs_firm_transcript/