Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Also not published until the day after Musk “left” his government position. The NYTimes sucks these days. As mentioned above WSJ has already published several articles on Musk’s drug use, the last being in January, I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

NO NO NO, Wash mom and Arlington mom are just nice feminist leaning moms who care about saving women!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

No, but those posts are tedious.

Well, it’s a slippery moral slope. Anyone insane and money and fame hungry enough to enter an arranged marriage with a gay man is also probably game to cook up a sexual harassment hoax and smear campaign for more money, fame, and to improve their image. It would cut to the core that you’re not dealing with a Godly moral loving all-American perfect family, they’re fake fraudulent Godless Hollywood deviants. It could also suggest an open marriage situation where the husband is fully aware of the wife pursuing other men, maybe even, at times, for the purposes of blackmail honeypot schemes they cook up together.

I hate to break this to you but you are the one in wanting this whole open-marriage, gay husband, conniving wife scenario in you mind, which makes you the deviant.

Lively and Reynolds have four kids together and while there are lots of rumors about them both being jerks, there's actually no rumors of infidelity on either side, and nothing to substantiate Reynolds being gay. So it actually seems like whatever else you might think if them, they have a pretty decent marriage. It's fascinating to me how badly you want your insane alternate reality to be true though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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, as if 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

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.

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.

I imagine it feels like someone who’s been wrongly accused and believes in the constitution. Just a thought.

"Listen to women ... unless it means I can't file a $400M defamation suit against a woman who asked me to stop doing things that I signed a contract agreeing not to do, and also not retaliate against her for it -- in that case we totally shouldn't listen to women."

Listen to women unless it’s a woman who used her power to bully me, sideline me in my own movie, file a sham lawsuit and a fake subpoena to illegally obtain text messages, and misrepresent those text messages in the press to ruin me. By all means don’t believe those women.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

It’s a bad law. The goal is to discourage the accused from bringing a defamation claim at all by threatening treble damages should they lose. They’re betting it’s a risk more will be afraid to take.

Yes. Because what harassers really need is to be able to weaponize defamation claims whether they were defamed or not. In the present case, Freedman is refusing to even answer questions about how some of the parties defamed his clients, or produce any evidence of the supposed statements causing that defamation. Yet Baldoni still sued for $400 million. He hasn't produced docs to show that extent of damages. Freedman is just using this as a tool to scare the parties and make them settle. He's just a bully with a law degree.

It’s multiple plaintiffs and you don’t need to show support for damages at this stage of the litigation.

Eh, that's not actually true. Liman just ordered that Baldoni et al needed to produce documents concerning their damages even though Freedman etc. had argued that some of those docs weren't relevant. Judge Liman said: "The Wayfarer Parties are seeking substantial economic damages in this case from Lively’s alleged tortious conduct. See Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 299 (“[T]he Lively Parties have cost the Wayfarer Parties their file, their reputation, their future prospects, even their talent agency”); id. ¶ 336 (alleging that as a result of the tortious conduct of the Lively Parties, the Wayfarer parties “have suffered loss of income and interference with future income” and that Baldoni, Heath, Nathan, Abel, and Sarowitz “sustained harm including to their business and professions”); id. at 222 (prayer for relief seeking a money judgment “representing compensatory damages including consequential damages, lost wages, earnings, and all other sums of money, together with interest on those amounts, in an amount to be proven at trial but in no event less than $400,000,000”). Documents sufficient to show the net worth of each of the Wayfarer Parties, including financial statements, assets, and liabilities, and for the corporate entities, financial statements, year-end balance statements, and documents sufficient to show gross income, net income, and expenditures, are relevant and should be produced.

So actually you do need to financial documents that support the party's claims for damages at this stage. Which Freedman fought, because proving the crazy amount of damages they are claiming will be tough. Because actually achieving those damages was never the goal -- it was always about threatening the parties and using the defamation suit as a tool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

No, but those posts are tedious.

Well, it’s a slippery moral slope. Anyone insane and money and fame hungry enough to enter an arranged marriage with a gay man is also probably game to cook up a sexual harassment hoax and smear campaign for more money, fame, and to improve their image. It would cut to the core that you’re not dealing with a Godly moral loving all-American perfect family, they’re fake fraudulent Godless Hollywood deviants. It could also suggest an open marriage situation where the husband is fully aware of the wife pursuing other men, maybe even, at times, for the purposes of blackmail honeypot schemes they cook up together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

No, but those posts are tedious.

Well, it’s a slippery moral slope. Anyone insane and money and fame hungry enough to enter an arranged marriage with a gay man is also probably game to cook up a sexual harassment hoax and smear campaign for more money, fame, and to improve their image. It would cut to the core that you’re not dealing with a Godly moral loving all-American perfect family, they’re fake fraudulent Godless Hollywood deviants. It could also suggest an open marriage situation where the husband is fully aware of the wife pursuing other men, maybe even, at times, for the purposes of blackmail honeypot schemes they cook up together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

No, but those posts are tedious.

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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, as if 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

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.

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.

I imagine it feels like someone who’s been wrongly accused and believes in the constitution. Just a thought.

"Listen to women ... unless it means I can't file a $400M defamation suit against a woman who asked me to stop doing things that I signed a contract agreeing not to do, and also not retaliate against her for it -- in that case we totally shouldn't listen to women."

Listen to women unless it’s a woman who used her power to bully me, sideline me in my own movie, file a sham lawsuit and a fake subpoena to illegally obtain text messages, and misrepresent those text messages in the press to ruin me. By all means don’t believe those women.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

It’s a bad law. The goal is to discourage the accused from bringing a defamation claim at all by threatening treble damages should they lose. They’re betting it’s a risk more will be afraid to take.

Yes. Because what harassers really need is to be able to weaponize defamation claims whether they were defamed or not. In the present case, Freedman is refusing to even answer questions about how some of the parties defamed his clients, or produce any evidence of the supposed statements causing that defamation. Yet Baldoni still sued for $400 million. He hasn't produced docs to show that extent of damages. Freedman is just using this as a tool to scare the parties and make them settle. He's just a bully with a law degree.

It’s multiple plaintiffs and you don’t need to show support for damages at this stage of the litigation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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, as if 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

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.

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.

I imagine it feels like someone who’s been wrongly accused and believes in the constitution. Just a thought.

"Listen to women ... unless it means I can't file a $400M defamation suit against a woman who asked me to stop doing things that I signed a contract agreeing not to do, and also not retaliate against her for it -- in that case we totally shouldn't listen to women."

Listen to women unless it’s a woman who used her power to bully me, sideline me in my own movie, file a sham lawsuit and a fake subpoena to illegally obtain text messages, and misrepresent those text messages in the press to ruin me. By all means don’t believe those women.

PS: The women who files these amicus briefs didn't do any of those things. And yet Baldoni still says they should not even be heard here.

Doesn’t matter. 47.1’s applicability has to be decided by a jury because of the “reasonable basis” and “malice” clauses, so filing the amicus briefs to support Lively’s MTDs are a publicity stunt. The people filling them specifically acknowledge that they’re filing with her consent, meaning they’re colluding with her. And there’s still this little issue of the constitution. We’re living in a time where are rights are under attack. This law infringes on the accused first amendment rights. California does some wacky things and this law was one of those wacky things.

The bolded would seem to make the entire law pointless, since its purpose is to prevent women from having to defend these lawsuits for speaking out. All of the accused suing for defamation will claim the woman was lying - that's why they consider it defamatory in the first place!

It’s a bad law. The goal is to discourage the accused from bringing a defamation claim at all by threatening treble damages should they lose. They’re betting it’s a risk more will be afraid to take.

Yes. Because what harassers really need is to be able to weaponize defamation claims whether they were defamed or not. In the present case, Freedman is refusing to even answer questions about how some of the parties defamed his clients, or produce any evidence of the supposed statements causing that defamation. Yet Baldoni still sued for $400 million. He hasn't produced docs to show that extent of damages. Freedman is just using this as a tool to scare the parties and make them settle. He's just a bully with a law degree.