Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

47.1 explicitly says “without malice.”

It says the accusations must be made "without malice." It does not say the court is required to consider the question of malice in its determination of the defamation lawsuit.

The settlement of Blake case clearly indicates that the parties don't believe she brought the case with malice -- the joint settlement announcement said her complaints deserved to be heard. How can a complain made with malice deserve to be heard? It can't.

Burke has yet to say anything that, from a legal perspective, would support that Blake is not *legally entitled* to pursue relief under 47.1. If Burke wants to say that she doesn't think Blake is a good test case or that she personally doesn't think Blake deserves to recover, that's her right. But she's claiming a bunch of stuff about 47.1 that is simply not true based on the text or legislative history of the law, and she's doing so under the auspices of being the laws "architect." I think it's dishonest. All laws have many authors and get debated in legislative sessions and as a lawyer, Burke knows that interpretation of the intent of a law is based on the legislative record, not the opinions of one person who advocated for the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

47.1 explicitly says “without malice.”

It says the accusations must be made "without malice." It does not say the court is required to consider the question of malice in its determination of the defamation lawsuit.

The settlement of Blake case clearly indicates that the parties don't believe she brought the case with malice -- the joint settlement announcement said her complaints deserved to be heard. How can a complain made with malice deserve to be heard? It can't.

Burke has yet to say anything that, from a legal perspective, would support that Blake is not *legally entitled* to pursue relief under 47.1. If Burke wants to say that she doesn't think Blake is a good test case or that she personally doesn't think Blake deserves to recover, that's her right. But she's claiming a bunch of stuff about 47.1 that is simply not true based on the text or legislative history of the law, and she's doing so under the auspices of being the laws "architect." I think it's dishonest. All laws have many authors and get debated in legislative sessions and as a lawyer, Burke knows that interpretation of the intent of a law is based on the legislative record, not the opinions of one person who advocated for the law.

I don’t fully understand what you’re saying and I’m not being sarcastic. Seems like we’re dealing with different definitions. Malice has to be addressed to apply 47.1. I think Judge Liman assumed it would be addressed a trial but they settled. That’s the problem. 47.1 makes no sense as a leftover claim from settlement and Blake can’t meet her burden b/c she settled her case. Also that throwaway statement was not an admission of no malice, that’s just how Blake’s team is spinning it. Blake’s concerns deserved to be heard could mean anything, including her right to create the 17 point list. It is not an admission that it was ok for her to use a sham lawsuit to get Jen Abel’s private texts, leak them to the nyt, and twist facts around the birthing scene, dance scene etc. they never said any of that was without malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

[Anonymous]

Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

47.1 explicitly says “without malice.”

It says the accusations must be made "without malice." It does not say the court is required to consider the question of malice in its determination of the defamation lawsuit.

The settlement of Blake case clearly indicates that the parties don't believe she brought the case with malice -- the joint settlement announcement said her complaints deserved to be heard. How can a complain made with malice deserve to be heard? It can't.

Burke has yet to say anything that, from a legal perspective, would support that Blake is not *legally entitled* to pursue relief under 47.1. If Burke wants to say that she doesn't think Blake is a good test case or that she personally doesn't think Blake deserves to recover, that's her right. But she's claiming a bunch of stuff about 47.1 that is simply not true based on the text or legislative history of the law, and she's doing so under the auspices of being the laws "architect." I think it's dishonest. All laws have many authors and get debated in legislative sessions and as a lawyer, Burke knows that interpretation of the intent of a law is based on the legislative record, not the opinions of one person who advocated for the law.

I don’t fully understand what you’re saying and I’m not being sarcastic. Seems like we’re dealing with different definitions. Malice has to be addressed to apply 47.1. I think Judge Liman assumed it would be addressed a trial but they settled. That’s the problem. 47.1 makes no sense as a leftover claim from settlement and Blake can’t meet her burden b/c she settled her case. Also that throwaway statement was not an admission of no malice, that’s just how Blake’s team is spinning it. Blake’s concerns deserved to be heard could mean anything, including her right to create the 17 point list. It is not an admission that it was ok for her to use a sham lawsuit to get Jen Abel’s private texts, leak them to the nyt, and twist facts around the birthing scene, dance scene etc. they never said any of that was without malice.

It doesn't make sense that 47.1 would require a verdict in favor of the accuser because 47.1 is explicitly written to apply to accusers who even just speak publicly about their allegations. Like the law is written to apply to someone who is harassed and later writes a statement on Facebook saying "I was harassed by Charvey Swinestein when I worked at Mirawax Films." If Swinestein sued such an accuser for defamation for making that statement, and the accuser won the defamation action, 47.1 would apply.

In a case like that, how would you determine malice? Especially if the defamation action was dismissed before trial in a similar manner to how Baldoni's defamation action was dismissed? How do you protect that accuser or compensate her for having to spend time and money and energy to defend a meritless defamation action brought because she told the truth?

Again, Burke's arguments don't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

Liman said at the hearing that he hasn’t addressed malice and has yet to address whether Blake is entitled to Rule 47.1 privilege, but he made abundantly clear that due process concerns were his primary concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

You have to remember the judge had to view the facts in the light most favorable to lively. The fact that he let the retaliation claims go forward doesn’t mean they had merit. But the fact she dropped them suggests they didn’t. The tmz guy has been making this claim for weeks, but how is it fair for Blake to collect damages when her case was thrown out and she dropped the rest. We the public have no basis for believing her claims were valid, so why would Baldoni? It’s not like she has a victory under her belt and is saying see, a jury agreed this happened to me, and their counter suit was nothing but intimidation. As it stands it looks like she falsely accused Justin and she’ll never be able to prove otherwise. She gave up that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

You have to remember the judge had to view the facts in the light most favorable to lively. The fact that he let the retaliation claims go forward doesn’t mean they had merit. But the fact she dropped them suggests they didn’t. The tmz guy has been making this claim for weeks, but how is it fair for Blake to collect damages when her case was thrown out and she dropped the rest. We the public have no basis for believing her claims were valid, so why would Baldoni? It’s not like she has a victory under her belt and is saying see, a jury agreed this happened to me, and their counter suit was nothing but intimidation. As it stands it looks like she falsely accused Justin and she’ll never be able to prove otherwise. She gave up that opportunity.

Thanks, longtime litigator here, I never forget the judge is viewing it in the light most favorable to Lively, that's why I phrased it the way I did. The reason the judge does that is because the judge is NOT the finder of fact -- the jury is. His job in that decision was to decide if the claims could, as a matter of law, proceed to trial. The way judges do this is by essentially imagining that a jury has found that one side is correct on all the facts, and then determining whether this would make them prevail under the law. For her harassment claims, he found she would still lose under the law because the law requires she be an employee and he found that even under her facts, she was not.

And no, a settlement does not mean claims don't have merit. People settle merited claims all the time because litigation is expensive, time consuming, embarrassing, and emotionally draining. A settlement may never be legally used to infer that a claim lacked merit because often it doesn't mean that at all. Also in their announcement of the settlement, both sides agreed her complaints "deserved to be heard." You can't square that statement with a finding that she brought those complaints with malice, and Baldoni's lawyers signed their names to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

What’s wrong with Megyn Kelly? She’s an actual survivor. We gotta stop gatekeeping who gets to be part of a movement based on our own biases. As Blake likes to say, people have multitudes lol. It could be that Burke is someone who looks at the facts of the case and doesn’t just subscribe to “believe all women” and that doesn’t make her less of an advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

Liman said at the hearing that he hasn’t addressed malice and has yet to address whether Blake is entitled to Rule 47.1 privilege, but he made abundantly clear that due process concerns were his primary concern.

He hasn't address malice either way. The PP said that Burke is "strongly implying" that she questions the merit of Blake's claims (suddenly! despite supporting Blakes claims for over a year prior to this) and that "goes to malice." That's not how it works and Burke, being a lawyer, knows that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

You have to remember the judge had to view the facts in the light most favorable to lively. The fact that he let the retaliation claims go forward doesn’t mean they had merit. But the fact she dropped them suggests they didn’t. The tmz guy has been making this claim for weeks, but how is it fair for Blake to collect damages when her case was thrown out and she dropped the rest. We the public have no basis for believing her claims were valid, so why would Baldoni? It’s not like she has a victory under her belt and is saying see, a jury agreed this happened to me, and their counter suit was nothing but intimidation. As it stands it looks like she falsely accused Justin and she’ll never be able to prove otherwise. She gave up that opportunity.

Thanks, longtime litigator here, I never forget the judge is viewing it in the light most favorable to Lively, that's why I phrased it the way I did. The reason the judge does that is because the judge is NOT the finder of fact -- the jury is. His job in that decision was to decide if the claims could, as a matter of law, proceed to trial. The way judges do this is by essentially imagining that a jury has found that one side is correct on all the facts, and then determining whether this would make them prevail under the law. For her harassment claims, he found she would still lose under the law because the law requires she be an employee and he found that even under her facts, she was not.

And no, a settlement does not mean claims don't have merit. People settle merited claims all the time because litigation is expensive, time consuming, embarrassing, and emotionally draining. A settlement may never be legally used to infer that a claim lacked merit because often it doesn't mean that at all. Also in their announcement of the settlement, both sides agreed her complaints "deserved to be heard." You can't square that statement with a finding that she brought those complaints with malice, and Baldoni's lawyers signed their names to it.

You’re misrepresenting the statement. It said concerns not complaint. It was carefully crafted and in no way conceded “without malice.” You should also know as an attorney that it won’t be admissible. Blake’s attorneys clearly asked for the statement so they could spin it but it won’t help them legally.

And on the merits of her retaliation claims, it looks bad that she dropped them but apparently still has the energy and money for a one sided evidentiary hearing on 47.1. It’s all legal strategy. The implication is they don’t think they can meet their legal burden on their case so they’re trying to do an end run around the trial to scrape out a victory. It’s PR theater. Everyone sees it including Burke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

Liman said at the hearing that he hasn’t addressed malice and has yet to address whether Blake is entitled to Rule 47.1 privilege, but he made abundantly clear that due process concerns were his primary concern.

He hasn't address malice either way. The PP said that Burke is "strongly implying" that she questions the merit of Blake's claims (suddenly! despite supporting Blakes claims for over a year prior to this) and that "goes to malice." That's not how it works and Burke, being a lawyer, knows that.

That’s not how it works but it looks bad. Blake voluntarily dropped her retaliation claims at the 11th hr for no money. It doesn’t make sense b/c she had nothing to lose. The trial was a gamble to wayfarer only. It makes it look like she had no legitimate case (which a lot of us felt anyway).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.

You have to remember the judge had to view the facts in the light most favorable to lively. The fact that he let the retaliation claims go forward doesn’t mean they had merit. But the fact she dropped them suggests they didn’t. The tmz guy has been making this claim for weeks, but how is it fair for Blake to collect damages when her case was thrown out and she dropped the rest. We the public have no basis for believing her claims were valid, so why would Baldoni? It’s not like she has a victory under her belt and is saying see, a jury agreed this happened to me, and their counter suit was nothing but intimidation. As it stands it looks like she falsely accused Justin and she’ll never be able to prove otherwise. She gave up that opportunity.

Thanks, longtime litigator here, I never forget the judge is viewing it in the light most favorable to Lively, that's why I phrased it the way I did. The reason the judge does that is because the judge is NOT the finder of fact -- the jury is. His job in that decision was to decide if the claims could, as a matter of law, proceed to trial. The way judges do this is by essentially imagining that a jury has found that one side is correct on all the facts, and then determining whether this would make them prevail under the law. For her harassment claims, he found she would still lose under the law because the law requires she be an employee and he found that even under her facts, she was not.

And no, a settlement does not mean claims don't have merit. People settle merited claims all the time because litigation is expensive, time consuming, embarrassing, and emotionally draining. A settlement may never be legally used to infer that a claim lacked merit because often it doesn't mean that at all. Also in their announcement of the settlement, both sides agreed her complaints "deserved to be heard." You can't square that statement with a finding that she brought those complaints with malice, and Baldoni's lawyers signed their names to it.

People settle cases all the time, but few lawyers would encourage a plaintiff with strong claims to drop them on the eve of trial for no money and no nda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke is worried because Liman may find the statute unconstitutional, at least with respect to federal courts. Seventh amendment requires that parties get a jury trial to decide damages. Statute doesn’t address that and Blake is trying to get damages without a trial.

But you don't address that by going on Megyn Kelly. And also, Liman could apply the 7th Amendment issues without finding the law itself unconstitutional. He could rule that the court is unable to apply 47.1 without a fact finder determining damages, and since all underlying litigation has been resolved, there is no opportunity to do this. This could limit the application of 47.1 in the future and influence how and when it is brought, but would not declare it unconstitutional.

And if that's your real concern, you make the exact argument I just outlined in an amicus brief to the court, citing legal precedence and making legal arguments.

You don't go on Megyn Kelly and Billy Bush.

What’s wrong with Megyn Kelly? She’s an actual survivor. We gotta stop gatekeeping who gets to be part of a movement based on our own biases. As Blake likes to say, people have multitudes lol. It could be that Burke is someone who looks at the facts of the case and doesn’t just subscribe to “believe all women” and that doesn’t make her less of an advocate.

Saying Jeffrey Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because the girls he trafficked were "barely legal" types instead of young children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyWFf3d62hY&t=13s

Claiming blackface is fine and insisting "for the kids at home" that Santa and Jesus are "just white": https://www.npr.org/2018/10/26/660850278/today-drops-megyn-kelly

Claiming body shaming is good because "it works" and "some of us want to be shamed": https://people.com/tv/megyn-kellys-most-controversial-moments-from-insisting-santa-is-white-to-defending-blackface/

Saying Sandra Bland, a black woman killed by police during a routine traffic stop, would still be alive if she'd "just complied" with the cop who killed her: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/25/megyn-kelly-nbc-blackface-racist-comments-white-supremacy-column/1760679002/

And more. She has a history of racist, victim-blaming, intentionally divisive statements, at both Fox News and after. She also has a history of platforming questionable people, like frequently inviting racist cop Mark Fuhrman on her show as a law enforcement "expert", or when she allowed a staffer on her show to post a chiron calling Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama."

She is not a good person and it is completely insane for a serious person who cares about victim's rights to decide to give their first interview on a controversial subject to Megyn Kelly. Like it does not compute. Especially when Kelly is established as a biased resource on the subject, as a client of Freedman's who has frequently featured members of Baldoni's team on her show but never given equal time to Blake's.