Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Aaaand Freedman filed an opposition to the amici's motion to file their briefs in the case, saying (1) the briefs are late and would delay the MTD decisions because Freedman would need to file opposition s(lol, [i]as if[/i] those are getting decided anytime in the near future; (2) the briefs say they provide unique perspective on the law but really don't and just provide the same legal arguments Lively et all addressed; and (3) in opposition to #2 supra, actually, that the briefs raise new issues of law not raised by Lively et al that are not appropriate for consideration.

I just want to note that for point #2, Freedman cites exclusively to a 1997 Seventh Circuit case, and then some SDNY cases from like 2003 or earlier.  Nothing recent from SDNY; he only cites to one case that is post-turn of the century and even that is 2003.

Liman seems like a bit of a stickler but I don't think amicus briefs are usually rejected -- usually they are allowed to inform the court to the extent the court wants to be informed, and ignored to the extent the court finds them not helpful.  I'd be surprised but not shocked if Liman rejected these, but we shall see.

Freedman opposition:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.256.0_1.pdf[/quote]

The briefs are a publicity stunt and inappropriate at this stage. The California law requires the accuser to have a reasonable basis for their claims and to make them without malice which requires an interpretation of facts from a jury and can’t be decided on at the MTD stage as a matter of law. Liman may accept the briefs because it’s ultimately harmless to do so, but freedman was right to oppose.[/quote]

I wonder how it feels to be male feminist Justin Baldoni, who is arguing in this case NOT ONLY that the CA law passed to protect victims of SA and SH is unconstitutional and should be struck, but now ALSO that important women's groups who helped to pass that law shouldn't even be heard.

Male feminist Justin Baldoni.  The same man who asks other men if they are man enough to listen to women would in this case like them to be quiet. [/quote]

He probably really regrets that schtick.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics