Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Meh. The full video is up now. Gives more context than the clip. She basically says the law wasn’t intended to apply when there’s been no fact finding of malice (which is an issue Liman has raised),and the SH claims were thrown out. She said she was surprised they didn’t deal with this in settlement. She said this law was intended to protect the less powerless against the powerful. Megyn said yeah and that’s not Blake. Victoria played it cool and didn’t respond with words but smirked/laughed in agreement. |
Anonymous
It’s all confusing to me because her own story was that she didn’t even have a case (evidence was lost or something) and was advised she could be sued for speaking about her harassment and naming the person in a casual setting. If she’s saying 47.1 doesn’t apply in Blake’s instance, because the SH claims never went to trial and thus malice can’t be proved, how would 47.1 have helped someone like her? Or are we taking about malice from Baldoni’s suit? |
Anonymous
I’m not sure. I think often times people hold back in the name of respectability politics, but she seems to think Blake is a liar and just doesn’t want to say it so explicitly. She said she told Blake’s lawyers “your client is frequently compared to amber heard” and was basically suggesting Blake’s association with the law is harmful not helpful. |
Anonymous
She also wasn't sued for defamation. I don't think she is necessarily saying that it would have helped her, but that this something that people who were sexually assaulted might have to confront. Of course, not clear to me why the legislation lumps together sexual assault and sexual harassment. |
Anonymous
I think she is trying to reach Liman's ears. |
Anonymous
| Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah. |
Anonymous
Yeah, it's like you either have to laugh or cry. For all the great intentions of this law I cannot imagine a worse first application than Blake Lively and this case. Like what an absolute shitshow for this woman that this is what she has to talk about now when it was very clearly not at all what they had in mind when crafting this law. |
Anonymous
Ok so Billy asked her why she celebrated when Justin’s case was dismissed. She said she hadn’t read the ruling, had only read the media story, and made the incorrect assumption that the judged ruled based on 47.1, including the question of malice. She said it wasn’t until she read the entire 100+ page ruling that she realized that wasn’t the case. So just as we’ve suspected all along with Blake’s supporters, it was ignorance lol. |
Anonymous
|
I fundamentally don't understand what Burke is saying because it doesn't square with the law itself.
She keeps saying that the law was intended only to protect people who can't afford to defend themselves in defamation actions. Yet the law includes no provision restricting its application to indigent persons, and I have seen nothing from the legislative record indicating this was the intent of the law. She also says that the law only applies if there has already been a finding of malice. Again, there is nothing in the law itself or the legislative record saying this, she seems to think it should just have been inferred. And if that's the case, it needs to be clear because in order to have a finding of malice, the judge or jury must actually take that question up. In Blake's case, the judge never considered one way or another whether the case against her was brought with malice. And why would he? 47.1 doesn't say that's required, and he clearly believed 47.1 could only be applied later. There also seems to be this assumption that had Blake gone to trial on her case and won, that would have decided this issue, but it wouldn't have because *that* case didn't address whether the defamation case against Blake was brought "with malice." Burke is essentially arguing that the law should be amended or changed. Which is fine, maybe it is not workable as written and needs to be fixed. But in that case, her problem isn't with Blake but with the CA legislators who adopted the law without addressing these issues. But Burke is going on right wing podcasts closely associated with Bryan Freedman to make these arguments in interviews that attack Blake for ever having brought the 47.1 motion in the first place, something Burke championed when it happened. It's nonsense. I can't take this person seriously. |
Anonymous
This just makes her sound dumb though. If she celebrated when Justin's case was dismissed under the assumption that 47.1 had been applied and contributed to its dismissal, then she clearly believed at the time that Blake was bringing her 47.1 motion appropriately and deserved to prevail. Now she claims that since the judge didn't use 47.1 in the dismissal, Blake can no longer use it, but she also says she hasn't changed her opinion on the original facts of the case. But on top of that she says the law isn't really for someone wealthy like Blake, but Blake was wealthy when Burke was supporting Blake's motion and celebrating the dismissal of Justin's case. It's not like Burke just found out for the first time that Blake Lively is a wealthy actress. It just gets weirder with ever word out of her mouth. |
Anonymous
|
People keep discussing Wayfarer's malice in their defamation claim but I don't think that is mentioned in 47.1? I thought "without malice" refers to the defendant (the person who made the accusation and is being sued for defamation). The idea is that if the person was maliciously lying and making things up, they can still be sued for defamation. The privilege only covers them if they made their claims without malice.
There was a quote somewhere where Burke said something like "oh, this law is meant to protect victims, it's not meant to limit the rights of a person who was falsely accused." But... every defamation plaintiff is arguing he was falsely accused kind of by definition. So you can never really reach the issue of whether 47.1 privilege applies without ligating the entire case! |
Anonymous
47.1 explicitly says “without malice.” |
Anonymous
As someone actually involved in the passage of the law Liman is currently being asked to interpret, the only way to actually "reach his ears" is via an amicus brief. He's not watching Billy Bush. If she wants to influence Liman, she can apply to submit an amicus. The only reason to go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush is to "reach the ears" of people who watch those shows. Meaning MAGA people who think Harvey Weinstein is innocent, Donald Trump was just engaging in "locker room talk" when he talked about grabbing women "by the pussy", and those who think it's unfair to call Jeffrey Epstein a pedophile because, after all, he only raped 15 yr old girls, not 8 yr olds. Why would a feminist want to speak to that audience? |
Anonymous
I think you’re twisting what she said. Did you watch the BB interview? She also said she tried to refrain from speaking on the facts of the case b/c you didn’t really know more than the rest of the public. She said her focus was only on defending the constitutionality of the law. She kept emphasizing Blake’s SH claims were dismissed and she settled the rest. She seems to strongly imply she questions the merit of Blake’s claims which goes to malice. |
Anonymous
Why do you assume she’s a feminist? Also what does that even mean? We have these labels and we try to decide who fits them and who doesn’t. Seems like Burke is shattering some people’s stereotypes today. |