Preston Poulter et al v. Ali "Dean" Assaf et al (2021)

[I'm not a Robot]

Dean's reply filed Oct 4th

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Dean's reply filed Oct 4th

View attachment 2600111 View attachment 2600112 View attachment 2600113 View attachment 2600114 View attachment 2600115 View attachment 2600116 View attachment 2600117 View attachment 2600118 View attachment 2600119 View attachment 2600120 View attachment 2600121 View attachment 2600122 View attachment 2600123 View attachment 2600124 View attachment 2600125

I was wondering if he replied.
Kind of cutting it close there, Dean.

 

[Strix454]

Dean's reply filed Oct 4th

He shouldn't have done all that stuff defending Vikki. Off topic. Nothing to do with him. Wrongly positioned in the front of the response. Never get baited into dealing with issues that have nothing to do with your case and nothing to do with you personally. Serving Vikki has nothing to do with him. Its Preston's problem.

The rest of it was about as good as one could expect given that he is representing himself. He hit nearly all the important points (IMO). VII could have been done better. It needed to better address why notice of the exhibits was necessary. The claim in their complaint of clear intentions to make false assertations and their not really supporting that with facts is kind of important in that.

 

[SargonF00t]

He shouldn't have done all that stuff defending Vikki. Off topic. Nothing to do with him. Wrongly positioned in the front of the response. Never get baited into dealing with issues that have nothing to do with your case and nothing to do with you personally. Serving Vikki has nothing to do with him. Its Preston's problem.

The rest of it was about as good as one could expect given that he is representing himself. He hit nearly all the important points (IMO). VII could have been done better. It needed to better address why notice of the exhibits was necessary. The claim in their complaint of clear intentions to make false assertations and their not really supporting that with facts is kind of important in that.

Is Spectree helping him/writing a good deal of his response(s)?

 

[Spectre_06]

Is Spectree helping him/writing a good deal of his response(s)?

Dean asked me to help him and I agreed to do so. It's legal as long as I don't claim to be a lawyer or able to represent him in any capacity with the lawsuit. I drafted some of it, proofread it, and gave it to Dean to do as he saw fit.

He shouldn't have done all that stuff defending Vikki. Off topic. Nothing to do with him. Wrongly positioned in the front of the response. Never get baited into dealing with issues that have nothing to do with your case and nothing to do with you personally. Serving Vikki has nothing to do with him. Its Preston's problem.

I disagree. The purpose of responding to the claim Vikki is evading service is twofold: it shows that the plaintiffs are failing to follow protocol, and lying to the court in documents about why something happened. We have a long line of lies from before the complaint was filed, and now they are lying in court documents. The idea is to get the court to look at it and ask themselves why they would do something so easily fact-checked to be incorrect, and then start to question the claims made in the complaint and responses to the motions. Further, they try to poison the well with regards to Dean by claiming that his co-host is evading service, which a reasonable person might look at and question. I also told him to put it at the beginning because you want to get that thought process going early, especially when you're going to point out how they "misrepresent" cases that actually support the defendants. Had the reply run longer, I would have had him cut it, because as you said it really adds nothing of substance beyond calling them liars.

The rest of it was about as good as one could expect given that he is representing himself. He hit nearly all the important points (IMO). VII could have been done better. It needed to better address why notice of the exhibits was necessary. The claim in their complaint of clear intentions to make false assertations and their not really supporting that with facts is kind of important in that.

Preston's lawyers were correct that exhibits can only be entered if they are part of a responsive pleading or the complaint. The screenshots of things outside the complaint are immaterial to the motion to dismiss itself. If you look at the motion to dismiss, Dean adds several items that are not necessary to make a point, specifically money made after the comaplint was filed because the allegations pertain to only one campaign. There was, at one point, where Dean wanted to mention that the stream they cite was actually on February 28th, not March 1, and I told him he lost right then and there if he did because you don't want to give them a chance to respond to that in their reply. They allege it started March 1; if you said it before then, you don't have to qualify or defend anything said prior to that date. In this case, it's best to not correct the record because that was on the plaintiffs to validate and correct.

That being said, the main points are the Kickstarter campaign and John Lamont. Preston has no case and never had one to begin with. He knows that. John Lamont is the only one who has anything going for him, but that's assuming the quotes attributed to Dean and Vikki are correct (spoiler alert: they aren't. They're outright made up in several cases), and thus his problem should be resolved in Florida, not Texas. He points out, rightfully, that John Lamont is barely mentioned, and they don't establish how he has been hurt in Texas when he has no connections to it. They claim the campaign launched on March 1, but the Kickstarter shows it started on March 15th. They claimed that it had "projected sales" of $5,000, but they had a price of $1,000. They claimed the campaign was shut down because of the alleged defamation, but when it was shut down 24 hours later it was to bring the goal down to $500 with no mention of defamatory comments being the reason. They also claim that it was not allowed back up because of "unprecedented demands" made by Kickstarter, but the likely reason is because John violated their terms of service. As such, those should be allowed in under judicial notice because the complaint itself alleges these facts, and the plaintiffs can't turn around and say, "Well sure, we allege these to be facts but we don't want the court to see them, just take our word for it." Going along with the first point about getting the court to take notice that the plaintiffs are lying about something as mundane as service the court is more likely to look at the constant lies and dismiss it under 12(b)(6), where-as 12(b)(2) would allow them to refile it, and I am expecting them to forum shop to Florida rather than file it in three separate jurisdictions.

EDIT: I'd also point out that if Dean had listened to my initial advice he'd have hired an attorney. He couldn't, though, and he's going this route.

 

[Strix454]

Ok. I understand the reasoning and why Dean structured it the way he did. I don't disagree with the reasoning. I personally see the jurisdictional arguments made in terms of case law to be the most embarssing thing they did, but I can see the point of view in highlighting the other thing. Its not a central argument but I get that its a very illustrative argument describing certain behavior.

 

[Spectre_06]

Ok. I understand the reasoning and why Dean structured it the way he did. I don't disagree with the reasoning. I personally see the jurisdictional arguments made in terms of case law to be the most embarssing thing they did, but I can see the point of view in highlighting the other thing. Its not a central argument but I get that its a very illustrative argument describing certain behavior.

I admit I waffled on following previous filings and putting objections at the end, but in this case the two objections are a necessity, in my opinion: the Vikki being unserved bullshit, and obviously objecting to consenting to jurisdiction. I'm sure there will be a number of issues @AnOminous will have with it, and I'll accept it when he tells me to do a fucking slip for being bad.

I should note that while I did take some liberty using @FROG 's reply brief, it was mainly for wording and trying not to appear like an absolute cunt, because I really wanted to straight-up say they were lying about their citations, among other things. Pretty much that entire thing had been written up before Rackets went over his reply (before it was even filed). I do consider it a decent piece of work on my part but obviously, I only have a very preliminary understand of this kind of stuff. It was pretty fun to do, though.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

This is why you hire a lawyer, Dean. Your unofficial, unlicensed co-council just admitted to ghost writing your legal filings for no good reason. You have no privilege with this person and he either doesn't know when to shut the fuck up or can't help himself. I'm guessing it's the latter. He's going on talk shows to discuss your case, making videos about it on his YouTube channel, responding to comments criticizing his work and confessing at the drop of a hat.

Is Spectree helping him/writing a good deal of his response(s)?

 

[AnOminous]

Ok. I understand the reasoning and why Dean structured it the way he did. I don't disagree with the reasoning. I personally see the jurisdictional arguments made in terms of case law to be the most embarssing thing they did, but I can see the point of view in highlighting the other thing. Its not a central argument but I get that its a very illustrative argument describing certain behavior.

The problem the plaintiff faces is they can't just ignore Calder as much as they'd like to and it clearly is entirely against them, and the Texas case law is even more hostile.

Preston could post on Twitter tomorrow saying that Vikki is being sued, and could possibly count as service (Not a lawyer, so the fuckwit's actual mileage may vary). The fact that Preston stated that Vikki evaded service not once but twice (on the first page on his motion against EVS) DOES seem to suggest some nans going on.

Only if he filed a motion. You're only allowed to go for those weirdo modes of service after:

"(b) Upon motion supported by a statement - sworn to before a notary or made under penalty of perjury - listing any location where the defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts showing that service has been attempted under (a)(1) or (a)(2) at the location named in the statement but has not been successful, the court may authorize service:"

Just getting the address wrong because you are incompetent and stupid does not count.

 

[The Coon]

Preston sent out an email a few days ago to his email list. I joined his email list a long time ago when Preston first popped up in CG and have just forgotten to unsub from it. I'm glad I didn't after receiving this email.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Preston sent out an email a few days ago to his email list. I joined his email list a long time ago when Preston first popped up in CG and have just forgotten to unsub from it. I'm glad I didn't after receiving this email.
View attachment 2622707

"John Lamont's first comic book"
Why are you lying, @PocketJacks?

 

[I'm not a Robot]

Preston sent out an email a few days ago to his email list. I joined his email list a long time ago when Preston first popped up in CG and have just forgotten to unsub from it. I'm glad I didn't after receiving this email.
View attachment 2622707

Um... shouldn't someone have informed the court that Angel of Darkness is on Kickstarter? Paragraph two of John's complaint said that Kickstarter wouldn't allow it on their platform. On August 2nd, he promoted it as coming soon to Kickstarter. Ethan filed his motion to dismiss on August 4th, and Dean followed on August 18th. It seems like an obvious oversight on their part not to have mentioned this.

Angel of Darkness #1 by John Lamont — Kickstarter

archived 13 Oct 2021 21:30:37 UTC

archive.ph

Angel of Darkness #1 by John Lamont — Kickstarter

archived 29 Aug 2021 07:46:44 UTC

archive.ph

https://twitter.com/jtl2dotnet/status/1422174578651054083

John Lamont on Twitter: "In the months before WW2, three British offi…

archived 13 Oct 2021 21:59:43 UTC

archive.ph

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Thanks, @Null!

 

[Strix454]

Um... shouldn't someone have informed the court that Angel of Darkness is on Kickstarter? Paragraph two of John's complaint said that Kickstarter wouldn't allow it on their platform. On August 2nd, he promoted it as coming soon to Kickstarter. Ethan filed his motion to dismiss on August 4th, and Dean followed on August 18th. It seems like an obvious oversight on their part not to have mentioned this.

More insanity. Kickstarter accepting the campaign and its relative success have destroyed Lamont's entire premise for damages in the case. The other side made a serious mistake in not mentioning this.

 

[Captain Manning]

Um... shouldn't someone have informed the court that Angel of Darkness is on Kickstarter? Paragraph two of John's complaint said that Kickstarter wouldn't allow it on their platform. On August 2nd, he promoted it as coming soon to Kickstarter. Ethan filed his motion to dismiss on August 4th, and Dean followed on August 18th. It seems like an obvious oversight on their part not to have mentioned this.

Well, in the case of Dean's reply brief, we might be able to chalk that up to "Spectre is an idiot." Again, depending on who wrote what.

In the case of Ethan's brief, yeah, that's just bad lawyering. It seems pretty fundamental to check whether a claim being made by a plaintiff suing your client is actually factual. You do that BEFORE you even start arguing points of law.

I think since Ethan's reply brief came first, the other camp with the Fisher Price My First Civil Defense Playset©™ would have probably noticed and copypasta'd it. Ethan's lawyers look particularly bad here and didn't do the non-client co-defendant any favors by omitting that.

I still laugh about the fact that John doesn't want to take responsibility for the fact that TheDemonatrix was yeeted because the dumb fuck put right in the description that the girls are underage. His pedo shit is too sordid for KS. That's what this is all about. That's entirely on John.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Well, in the case of Dean's reply brief, we might be able to chalk that up to "Spectre is an idiot." Again, depending on who wrote what.

In the case of Ethan's brief, yeah, that's just bad lawyering. It seems pretty fundamental to check whether a claim being made by a plaintiff suing your client is actually factual. You do that BEFORE you even start arguing points of law.

I think since Ethan's reply brief came first, the other camp with the Fisher Price My First Civil Defense Playset©™ would have probably noticed and copypasta'd it. Ethan's lawyers look particularly bad here and didn't do the non-client co-defendant any favors by omitting that.

I still laugh about the fact that John doesn't want to take responsibility for the fact that TheDemonatrix was yeeted because the dumb fuck put right in the description that the girls are underage. His pedo shit is too sordid for KS. That's what this is all about. That's entirely on John.

The points of law come first. Ethan’s arguments for summary dismissal are viewed through the filter of “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, it’s still legally insufficient for a cause of action”. and “the court has a lack of individual jurisdiction”Whether or not the Plaintiff’s lied in their claims would be a trial matter for the finder of facts.

 

[Captain Manning]

The points of law come first. Ethan’s arguments for summary dismissal are viewed through the filter of “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, it’s still legally insufficient for a cause of action”. and “the court has a lack of individual jurisdiction”Whether or not the Plaintiff’s lied in their claims would be a trial matter for the finder of facts.

That's true, but consult FRCP 8(c). Fraud can be raised as an affirmative defense in a reply motion.

In the instant case, Lamont is alleging he's banned from Kickstarter due to the actions of the defendants... while apparently being on Kickstarter and collecting money from the same. It's really quite incredible the balls they're showing here with this crap.

But yes, if they can get a dismissal on FRCP 12(b)(2) (jurisdiction), or FRCP 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim...), that's perfectly fine too.

EDIT: Correction per AnOminous below.

 

[AnOminous]

But yes, if they can get a dismissal on FRCP 12(c)(2) (jurisdiction), or FRCP 12(c)(6) (failure to state a claim...), that's perfectly fine too.

Nitpick but those are the 12(b) motions, not 12(c). 12(b)(6) is a particularly common vehicle for getting rid of lolsuits.

 

[Captain Manning]

Nitpick but those are the 12(b) motions, not 12(c). 12(b)(6) is a particularly common vehicle for getting rid of lolsuits.

Whoops. You're right. I dunno why I typed 12(c) when it's clearly in 12(b). I guess I transposed it with 8(c). Chalk it up to late-night posting.

Where do you stand on the issue of the plaintiff's obviously bullshit Kickstarter claim leading to potential Rule 11 sanctions?

Example:

 

[AnOminous]

Whoops. You're right. I dunno why I typed 12(c) when it's clearly in 12(b). I guess I transposed it with 8(c). Chalk it up to late-night posting.

View attachment 2631786

Where do you stand on the issue of the plaintiff's obviously bullshit Kickstarter claim leading to potential Rule 11 sanctions?

Example:
View attachment 2631799

Usually you need to notify a party to collect. For instance, in that case:

Defendants have complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 11(c)(1)(A). They filed a separate motion for sanctions; and they gave plaintiff over 21 days to withdraw the claims. In a letter dated September 6, 2000, defendants described the specific conduct alleged to violate Rule 11, and plaintiff responded by refusing to withdraw even the pension benefit claim. Plaintiff also did not respond to defendants' Rule 11 motion by withdrawing the claim within 21 days.