Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

You didn’t answer the question. The judge decides on whether there are issues of fact for a trial (jury or judge).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Candace is soooo good at breaking this down. And you know Ryan, Blake and Ari watch every minute of it sick to their stomachs. lol

Every time you cite Candace Owens as a reliable source on this, I become more convinced that Baldoni and Wayfarer are sketchy AF.

Why? Are you suggesting Owens is being bribed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

No, it’s a great question! Whether it goes to trial depends on whether the judge decides that there is an issue of fact to decide that fit a particular legal claim. Issues of fact go to trial. But in some civil courts cases the parties elect for the judge to be the fact finder in the trial - I’m actually not sure of how that gets done. I think the plaintiff decides.

DP

P will want a jury trial. And agree, the judge will try to narrow the issues based on the law, and questions of fact vis a vis a legal claim will go to the jury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

DP here.

Could you explain what your point is then? You seem mad that someone had heard of DWT (a large AmLaw 100 firm that is well known to most attorneys practicing at a high level) or Kate Bolger (one of the top 1A lawyers in NYC, like in a group of 3, maybe 4, people) but actually these are normal things for the kind of lawyer likely to spend their downtime reading up on this particular case. Why are you so worked up about it.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's another fun read. This is an attachment to NYT's MTD that shows the correspondence between Jennifer Abel and Meghan Twohey prior to publication of the article: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.107.7.pdf

It includes the statement from Bryan Freedman provided by Abel. Also I thought this was telling -- Twohey asks Abel if the statement from Freedman applies to "Mr. Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, you, Ms. Abel, and Melissa Nathan" and Abel replies:

"Yes, and Jed Wallace."

Wallace is in the middle of all of it. And keep in mind this shows how tightly aligned Abel, Nathan, Freedman, Wallace, Baldoni, Heath, and Sarowitz all were even before the NYT article dropped. Tucked up cozy in bed together, nice and tight.

Wow, just wow. So anyways, what are your thoughts on Ari making a podcast episode disappear?

I think it's funny that you have nothing at all to say on something that is directly relevant one of the lawsuits this whole thread is based on (the one actually referenced in the thread title) and want to redirect to an internet rumor about whether or not Ari Emanuel got Freakonomics to take down a podcast, something that may have happened, I don't know, but has no bearing whatsoever on the lawsuits. I don't care about Ari Emanuel.

NP and it doesnt matter to me so much that the Freakonomics podcaster somehow lost the ability to post the video of the interview. Just this one interview.
Because the audio is still available out there to grab.
And in it, Ari not only attempts to humiliate HB by calling him “Baloney—Baldoni—whatever” (which is strange to refer to a client of 5+ years in your own prestigious management firm that way) but he then gleefully brags that he fired JB simply because he is “ride or die” for RR and BL. I’d say that’s a pretty strong statement supporting damages incurred to/career opportunities lost by JB as a result of BL’s SH claim.

I totally agree. Ari should have kept his mouth shut. They are all so arrogant.

A wildly successful professional podcast that’s been around for like 20 years — for the first time in their history “forgot to record” a live event. Ari ran his mouth like the arrogant boomer idiot he is. Justin deserves a hundred million dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Candace is soooo good at breaking this down. And you know Ryan, Blake and Ari watch every minute of it sick to their stomachs. lol

Every time you cite Candace Owens as a reliable source on this, I become more convinced that Baldoni and Wayfarer are sketchy AF.

Why? Are you suggesting Owens is being bribed?

The paranoia and conspiracy theories from Ryan and Blake sycophants is breathtaking. And hilarious. Ryan and Blake really can’t wrap their head around millions of people finding them repulsive and seeing through their two-bit scams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

Thanks. I actually wasn’t sure if either part could demand a jury trial but just looked it up - FRCP 38.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

Read the entire thread quoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

Read the entire thread quoted.

Please point out where I mention Lively or DWT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

Read the entire thread quoted.

Please point out where I mention Lively or DWT.

Hint, I didn’t . The gaslighting here is out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

DP here.

Could you explain what your point is then? You seem mad that someone had heard of DWT (a large AmLaw 100 firm that is well known to most attorneys practicing at a high level) or Kate Bolger (one of the top 1A lawyers in NYC, like in a group of 3, maybe 4, people) but actually these are normal things for the kind of lawyer likely to spend their downtime reading up on this particular case. Why are you so worked up about it.

This is so idiotic. Those aren’t my posts. Again, a little time spent reading and less jumping to conclusions would go a long way. I personally could care less whether anyone has heard of DWT.

Anyone who bothers to read the posts in this thread could see that, btw. Personally think it’s the same person posting both sides of the DWT to distract attention from the lawyers pointing out weaknesses in the motion to dismiss.

I was thinking just the opposite, that the intent was to distract from the strength of the MTD.

[Anonymous]

l

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super dumb question that will make all the lawyers bristle: what determines whether a judge or jury decides this? It seems like Baldoni would want a jury trial.

If he wants a jury trial he can have one -- you have a right to one as long as the claimed amount is above a certain level, and this case certainly meets that threshold.

Agree that Baldoni will insist on a jury trial. I could see why Lively would want a bench trial but it's not going to happen.

You didn’t answer the question. The judge decides on whether there are issues of fact for a trial (jury or judge).

the jury plays no role until the trial stage. the judge decides pretrial motions like motions to dismiss and for summary judgement. The purpose of those motions is to determine whether the complaint alleged plausible legal claims (motion to dismiss) and whether there are disputed issues of fact (motion for summary judgment) sufficient to allow the case to get to the jury trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand the law firm squabbling and cheerleading and accusations that someone must work for a firm or be a Blake fan especially based on their read on boring topics such as whether NY or CA controls.

Why pretend to be a lawyer in one post and then write this? Choice of law, boring or not, is critical to one of the grounds for dismissal raised in the motion.

I'm not the person you've (?) been arguing with. I'm a lawyer. Of course, choice of law is important, especially with regard to false light which doesn't exist in NY (on other points, the motion tends to cite law from both states). But I have zero reason to believe that posts defending NY choice of law aren't in good faith and are based on Fandom. Agreeing on that minor point doesn't mean someone is against Baldoni, even if their legal analysis is off in your opinion. His entire case doesn't rest on this claim. The false light claim just isn't very important and would likely be disposed in the same manner as defamation.

What is even your point? I quite clearly wrote it relates to one of the grounds for dismissal, not the entire case. Maybe just take the time to read what others post before attacking them.

My point is that it's bizarre to assume someone arguing the opposite of you on this particular point must be an insider or Blake Lively fan.

Again, do you even read before posting? I said nothing about being a Blake Lively fan or an insider in my post.

DP here.

Could you explain what your point is then? You seem mad that someone had heard of DWT (a large AmLaw 100 firm that is well known to most attorneys practicing at a high level) or Kate Bolger (one of the top 1A lawyers in NYC, like in a group of 3, maybe 4, people) but actually these are normal things for the kind of lawyer likely to spend their downtime reading up on this particular case. Why are you so worked up about it.

This is so idiotic. Those aren’t my posts. Again, a little time spent reading and less jumping to conclusions would go a long way. I personally could care less whether anyone has heard of DWT.

Anyone who bothers to read the posts in this thread could see that, btw. Personally think it’s the same person posting both sides of the DWT to distract attention from the lawyers pointing out weaknesses in the motion to dismiss.

I was thinking just the opposite, that the intent was to distract from the strength of the MTD.

It started when lawyers began pointing out weaknesses with the MTD.

[Anonymous]

I am a lawyer and the MTD is very strong and will be granted