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]Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%. [/quote]

DP. More flooding as per Nick Shapiro style…

To Pp focused on the NYT, what do you think of Lively using Nick Shapiro for her PR team? Any thoughts on that?

I was the 20% NYT person if I recall, and I think almost the only poster who thought the MTD could survive (but be limited).  I still think liman’s decision wasn’t quite right and there were aspects of the NYTs coverage that went beyond fair report, and Baldoni should have been permitted discovery to find out more… although liman did give freedman the chance to amend and he didn’t. Not sure if that was a huge mistake or not, and I’m not sure how focused wayfarer et al were on the lawsuit to begin with. Most people thought it was for PR and to get their side out, and well, it worked. They shifted the narrative.

I’m not sure why this obsessed poster above wants to find old posts from people (who she’s not necessarily responding to now, although that never seems to occur to her) to gloat. It’s juvenile and bizarre, especially for a law firm lawyer, as she claims.  As a lawyer, she should be more mature and she should also know that litigation is a long road. And as a firm lawyer, I can’t imagine her billable hours aren’t totally blown. [/quote]

The lecturing continues!  If what you say above is true and if memory serves, then you must be the same smug media lawyer who was previously lecturing a Lively defender that they didn’t understand first amendment law and must not know anything if they were throwing around the term 1A.  Is that you?  And now you’re cushioning your previous response saying you only ever said a 20% chance of surviving a MTD and anyway the judge is wrong (but conveniently leaving out your prior rants)?

Pretty sure you also claimed that Baldoni would definitely be given the opportunity to amend even after the April deadline passed because amendment was freely granted.

Here’s a little lecture for you, from me. Litigation is hard. On many issues, the law is uncertain and you can’t necessarily predict what a judge will do. So when lawyers here do their best to perform legal analysis and make an educated guess on what will happen, maybe don’t insult them as a knee jerk reaction when their opinion differs from yours. Maybe try not insulting anyone here generally, for a while, as you continue to do to me, above. People are different and contain multitudes, and you don’t know what anyone else’s life is like. Maybe try that. Jmho.

[/quote]

It’s been a whole day and media attorney hasn’t responded to this, but is back to her old insult tricks, oh well.

Just noting again how conveniently your memory served you in going back through your old posts to recount how they really weren’t all that wrong (they were) but to leave out how you insulted and mocked the “1A” attorney (who called it better than you) and also said Baldoni would be given leave to amend (wrong).

Let me know if you want me to find those comments of yours and repost them here, to jog your memory.[/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