Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]FYI NotActuallyGolden (NAG) is doing a TikTok live today at 1pm with two other lawyers who post on TT, LittleGirlAttorney (LGA) and BB

LGA is a lawyer who works in CA and has experience with employment law, SH claims, etc. She’s also clerked in CA courts.

BB is a former federal court clerk and brings a lot of insight into federal court workings and how judges operate.

And all three don’t think Blake has a strong case

[/quote]

NAG has been so wrong over and over about this case, it should be embarrassing to her, but it's not.  Remember when she posted that she was so mad that people kept misciting the facts about the Taylor Swift stuff, and she was going to give straight facts, and then she got the entire timeline wrong and had to correct herself.  Fail.

She barely reads the pleadings and doesn't read the case law, so she's going off vibez most of the time.  I liked her in the beginning but after she kept getting things wrong, wrong, wrong I lost faith.  [/quote]

+1, this was my exact journey with her.

I think early on she stayed in her lane and only commented on legal issues and procedures she had real experience with, plus she used to couch things a lot more. Like she'd explain federal procedure for something and then outline what the two parties' arguments were, but she wouldn't editorialize much.

I think as she go traction she started trying to give her audience what they wanted, which mean being more critical of Lively's case and lawyers and giving the gentlest, most favorable read to Wayfarer and their lawyers. A lot of the content creators are doing this, which is one of the reasons people were so shocked when Liman dismissed most of Wayfarer's case, even though many other lawyers (myself included) had been talking about a significant portion of those claims getting dismissed for a while, and had been trying to explain the obvious pleading problems, while people yelled at us and called us "Blake bots."[/quote]

Yup.  And she went further today speculating (wrongly) that the judge had never received the recording, despite the fact that the judge wrote about how it revealed the identity of the witness in a footnote in his Order.  She really does not read the filings carefully and is just wrong over and over and over again.[/quote]

Yes, exactly this. Saying the judge never received it was just her telling people who were looking for reasons to go after Lively's lawyers exactly what they wanted to hear.

I get especially annoyed when she says stuff like this because she *is* a litigator who has worked in federal court. Had Lively failed to attach the recording, which was essential for the judge to be able to rule on whether to keep it sealed or not, the clerks would have identified this deficiency immediately and alerted Lively to re-file. Certainly the judge would not have ruled on the issue without it.

Which means either she knew the tape had been filed but was just saying something she knew would please her audience, which is heavily anti-Lively, or she is just not very smart. Either way, it's stuff like this that has made me decide she isn't worth listening to.[/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