Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand this intense focus on Burke. Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well it’s been 24 hrs and no one has picked up the interview in mainstream media except tmz (which sanitized it), LA Mag and foreign press. I’ll gladly admit Megyn Kelly isn’t great if you’re willing to acknowledge the media is corrupt and protecting Blake. This is a pretty big story but most outlets are posting about Blake’s thirst trap picture or Ryan instead. And still we’re confused why she went on Megyn Kelly…

Of course Ryan’s clout is being used to mop up this mess. However, the fact is Blake is barely a celebrity. Very few people care about this inside baseball crap 18 months later. Blake and imo Ryan are old news.

The media is still talking about them. They’re just not reporting this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand this intense focus on Burke. Who cares?

I was initially very interested because it seemed significant that someone considered the "architect" of 47.1 opposed Blake's use of it. That felt relevant.

But as it's gone on, I've lost interest because it now seems like that was a bit of an exaggeration (she was one of several authors and advocates) and because the argument she's making doenst' seem to be that Blake should never have filed a 47.1 motion, but that Burke thinks the motion should have been rolled into the settlement. But the settlement was an agreement between both sides, so if it wasn't included, I'm assuming it's because the sides couldn't agree on how to resolve it, and wanted the court to decide, which is what is happening?

So it just seems like a non-issue at this point.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty bad to hijack legislation for your own PR, especially if your involvement could actually hurt the legislation (survivors). C’mon. We all know this is what Blake is doing. She could have donated a ton of money to the cause—but instead she’s trying to own it.

[Anonymous]

I think Liman would like to make his ruling as narrow as possible and let a state court deal with the statute or at least a federal court sitting in California. The fact that Lively has a similar 47.1 motion pending on even more questionable grounds in federal court in Texas complicates the situation.

If I worked for one of these groups responsible for this legislation, I’d start working on some legislation to amend 47.1. It is not long for the world in its current form.

[Anonymous]

Are Blake and Ryan broke?

Mark Garagos said he has it on good authority that they’ve entered fee arbitration with their lawyers. Which means they don’t want to pay them.

Lots of rich people live on debt and aren’t very liquid. Maybe they bit off more than they could chew here with this 60M lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

As predicted, Liman did not take on 47.1 head on. He granted Lively her legal fees for the motion to dismiss. There may be further sparring about whether she has to apportion her fees solely to the defamation arguments -- in any case, unlikely to make much of a dent in the $30 million plus she reportedly still owes her lawyers. She was denied any punitive or treble damages.

[Anonymous]

Here's the full decision. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1440.0_1.pdf

Interestingly, the Court penalizes WF a bit on malice saying that he can only at what's currently on the record since WF did not request a hearing on that issue. Liman clerarly wanted to be done with this case, and as I predicted, issued an opinion just a week or two before he gets new clerks.

[Anonymous]

Daily Mail first to spin this as yet another loss/disappointment for Blake.https://www.dailymail.com/tvshowbiz/article-15895701/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-payout-lawsuit.html

[Anonymous]

Correcting myself. Liman did note that he may have to apportion the fees, i.e. limit to just the parts of the motion related to defamation. From footnote 4 of the decision:

The Court makes no findings or holdings at this juncture with respect to the appropriate measure of fees for the subject of this motion: Lively’s defense of the Wayfarer Parties’ complaint in the Wayfarer Action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C) (“The court may decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the value of services.”). The ultimate fee determination may depend in part on “apportionment principles,” including the extent to which fees were incurred on issues common to claims for which attorneys’ fees are provided by statute and claims for which they are not. See Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273, 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are Blake and Ryan broke?

Mark Garagos said he has it on good authority that they’ve entered fee arbitration with their lawyers. Which means they don’t want to pay them.

Lots of rich people live on debt and aren’t very liquid. Maybe they bit off more than they could chew here with this 60M lawsuit.

I think it's a safe bet that have very little liquid wealth. And are probably being milked by every grifter in their orbit. They are not sophisticated people, they are just dumb actors with no education.

[Anonymous]

I can't wait to hear how the Blake bot who was predicting punitive and treble damages for Blake spins this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait to hear how the Blake bot who was predicting punitive and treble damages for Blake spins this.

She lost 10 of 13 claims after dismissing 2 on her own. Settled for $0 and got nothing in damages. Good for her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait to hear how the Blake bot who was predicting punitive and treble damages for Blake spins this.

She lost 10 of 13 claims after dismissing 2 on her own. Settled for $0 and got nothing in damages. Good for her!

The Blake bot is waiting for her instructions on how to spin. We'll have to wait a few hours.

[Anonymous]

So how much is the actual amount she is likely to get ?