- Joined
- Feb 12, 2019
For whatever it’s worth Keffels does belong on the wall, in whatever capacity you can imagine the meaning to be.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Listen, Nick hasn't changed."
Capos following the orders from the godfather. Or in this case, Cardinals following orders from the law PopeListen, Nick and crew. The shit you're all catching is mostly because you faggots are trying to hold two positions at once. You're trying to say he hasn't changed while defending why it's ok that he did. Just admit that he's changed and say he's allowed to change and if people don't like it then he appreciates them being around for the ride so far but they can hop off now. It honestly is THAT simple. But they have this idea that "changing" is bad and thus they can't admit to it or....something bad will happen? Their egos will be damaged? You guys make yourselves look way more retarded by trying to pull off this double-speak.
Also, Legal Mindset talking about Internet fwendship at the end there is emblematic of an issue that is sure to turn out hilarious.
Again, if it was me, I'd be looking to settle. But I haven't got paypigs galore looking to fund my follies. And I suppose there's the issue of damages? How great is Monty's reputation in the first place? I'd be worried that regardless of how low regard somebody's held in, a jury will think it's going to be damaged by the allegation -- from a lawyer, no less -- that you're a paedophile.
Whether a statement contains a factual allegation is a question of law that has to be decided by the court before a jury's allowed to see it. Juries decide questions of fact. If the court determines that as a matter of law, the statement doesn't contain any factual issue, it cannot possibly help the jury in their fact-finding and would only serve to potentially confuse them.This seems to suggest that it's not quite as cut and dried as you make it seem here:
"Labeling a statement an opinion does not automatically make it an opinion or make it safe from the possibility of it being defamatory. If a reader or listener could reasonably understand that the communication as stating a fact that could be verified, the communication will not be considered an opinion, especially if it is sufficiently derogatory to hurt the subject’s reputation. Also, a communication that is presented in the form of an opinion may be considered defamatory if it implies that the opinion is based on defamatory facts that have not been disclosed.
In other words, the fact that a statement is one’s opinion does not necessarily make one immune from a defamation lawsuit."
Which, I imagine means context is everything , and they'd let a jury decide whether Nick's claims that Monty likes to suck little boy cock was opinion or not.
American courts have actually been very consistent on this point: Calling someone a pedophile is a protected opinion.How great is Monty's reputation in the first place? I'd be worried that regardless of how low regard somebody's held in, a jury will think it's going to be damaged by the allegation -- from a lawyer, no less -- that you're a paedophile.
Honestly, from their perspective, as people that know and communicate with Nick regularly, privately, he likely hasn't changed. Their problem is they aren't viewing it from the perspective of everyone that doesn't know Nick privately. To those/us, he has changed. For the worse."Listen, Nick hasn't changed."
*Proceeds to justify how he's changed*
"People are just mad because they had some incorrect vision of him in their head that doesn't fit into the box they want"
*Proceeds to justify why he's had a shift in content and presentation of himself*
Listen, Nick and crew. The shit you're all catching is mostly because you faggots are trying to hold two positions at once. You're trying to say he hasn't changed while defending why it's ok that he did. Just admit that he's changed and say he's allowed to change and if people don't like it then he appreciates them being around for the ride so far but they can hop off now. It honestly is THAT simple. But they have this idea that "changing" is bad and thus they can't admit to it or....something bad will happen? Their egos will be damaged? You guys make yourselves look way more retarded by trying to pull off this double-speak.
Also, Legal Mindset talking about Internet fwendship at the end there is emblematic of an issue that is sure to turn out hilarious.
Really anyone who knows about law already realized that he is not a great legal mind. Look, I liked him and found him entertaining, however his legal reasoning wasn't that great. For the longest time I never minded this, but I only looked into his videos on particular topics, such as Greer, where you don't need to be a great legal mind. But I never expect legal youtubers to be great legal minds, I just want to be entertained, if I want good legal analysis I will go elsewhere. He never needed to be a good lawyer for what he does, just have reasonable takes, bring it in a form that is digestable for the lay person and be entertaining, as long as he did that I think he would be fine as a law youtuber. For me the biggest issue is that to me he is no longer entertaining in his content and as such I don't watch his content anymore expect clips in this thread to laugh at him.Honestly, from their perspective, as people that know and communicate with Nick regularly, privately, he likely hasn't changed. Their problem is they aren't viewing it from the perspective of everyone that doesn't know Nick privately. To those/us, he has changed. For the worse.
Given the recent posting of actual legal filings he's done, how bad they were, and how he's poorly handling the Monty suit, I'm more of the opinion now that he's a bad lawyer and always has been and it was just hidden by his charisma. To be a good con artist/grifter you need charisma because it distracts people from looking into what a piece of shit fraud you may actually be.
To be fair the only knowledge I have of "what the fuck is a montagraph" is Nick saying that the individual in question a big fan of fellating underage boys.Which, I imagine means context is everything , and they'd let a jury decide whether Nick's claims that Monty likes to suck little boy cock was opinion or not.
American courts have actually been very consistent on this point: Calling someone a pedophile is a protected opinion.
Wow! I missed that the first time. https://youtu.be/sipG5NN7Ae0?t=63In the Elissa clips video Drex says Nick has “assless chaps”?
If you want other things to talk about that are funny you could talk about Andrew "Legal Mindset" d'Adesky. His bankruptcy lawsuits got found recently by @Balldo's Gate and give a clear reason why he fled to Korea. He is a less spergy version of Ralph and #1 youtube ballwasher of Nick.
View attachment 4282968
heh funny you should mention that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLB3EMSZ9ZAHe should rename his channel Illegal Mindset.
Of course Nick has fucking changed. At a bare minimum he went from being Conservative presenting with Libertarian values to Libertine. He made the stupid decision to thrust shameful behavior into the spotlight and was surprised when his long time supporters didn't toe the line. There is a mountain of difference between acknowledging / referencing your degeneracy and wearing it like a hat that deserves to be shown off because of how big the feather is.
Those that are pissed at Nick are pissed because he's decided that he'd rather have skanks in Locals send him a steady stream of lewds than engage with 90% of his fan base that don't want the focus of the show to be his life.I'd say that every thread has people who typically are involved in a thread because they like the person and their content. Nick typically used to talk about interesting cases with some knowledge of them. I think his laziness was already turning people off, but the increased sex talk was annoying the True and Honest Fans. Him being revealed as a sexual weirdo who allowed his wife to post her cottage cheese ass and posted his own is what turned the thread against him.
On the one hand, defrauding banks out of any amount of money is based as fuck. On the other, Lol, get fucked d'Adesky. Claiming you can't be found is surefire way to get people digging into your background you idiot.If you want other things to talk about that are funny you could talk about Andrew "Legal Mindset" d'Adesky. His bankruptcy lawsuits got found recently by @Balldo's Gate and give a clear reason why he fled to Korea. He is a less spergy version of Ralph and #1 youtube ballwasher of Nick.
View attachment 4282968