- Joined
- May 14, 2022
Jeremy Hambly / The Quartering / MTGHeadquarters / Unsleeved Media / Midwestly - Buttblasted manchild upset he was banned from a childrens' card game, Grifter, supporter of the cancel culture
- Thread starter Spectre_06
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2022
Attachments
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
flareking414
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2020
blocked by pool
archive.is
TheQuartering on Twitter: "Wait Holy shit. https://t.co/zea95m1ILS" /…
archived 4 Feb 2023 18:25:22 UTC
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2021
This Eliza bleu shit is getting really wild. It's interesting to see whose all in on the grift/scam. Even Tim Pool is simping and coming to her defense. It's pretty obvious she's a fraud because she becomes way too defensive when it's the thing she's been doing to grift. Will be interesting to find out how this all goes down.
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
Hamboned runs the risk of a criminal charge in WI and could have mitigated his risk by actually listening to the people who he claims are telling him to shut up.
This is not the 1st time he's messed with WI 942.09. Last time was with Reviewtech USA.
Eliza isn't under 18 in that video Hamboned used based on published timelines. But 942 also talks about consent:
"A person suffering from a mental illness or defect that impairs capacity to appraise personal conduct."
Eliza is claiming drug use - enough for perhaps that element to be satisfied.
So while there is almost surely a contract thus making consent arguable for the image Hamboned used. But Hamboned didn't bother to reach out to WorldStar and buy the right to make the image post.
Nor did Hambone lacking explicit posting rights go down to Target and bought a dumptruck and doll and pose them like a still from the image and ask Eliza about the video. Could have even made an arts and crafts video about the simulated image.
If he'd had bought even limited rights he'd have avoided 942.09(3m) part 'knows that the person depicted does not consent to the posting or publication of the private representation*.' Worldstar strongly has the rights to make posts of the images. Not so much for Hamboned - how would the claim of fair use 'news' work given the Hamboned past postings on journalism? Buying limited rights would have 'gave possession' and Eliza would have to show the contract didn't allow Hamboned rights access due to reduced capacity at the time of signing.
Taking a picture with a toy and a doll or even the doll and some sand from sandbags or even just pink paint background would have allowed him to get clicks from the mockery of having to do such things just to avoid Eliza's striking. Coulda even gone for the adult swim Robot Chicken look.
Perhaps other state statutes would allow Eliza to make claims that concern the providers enough to pull down the images as the cost of taking them down is FAR lower than having a legal fight over them. For whatever reason her removal concerns are being honored.
If Hamboned had bothered to buy limited rights he'd have been better positioned. Instead we'll get to watch Hamboned beg for money yet again 'to totally take this to court'. His truck is getting old and needs replacement after all.
And if there is a legal fight this could get expensive and perhaps create caselaw*.
*“Private representation" means a representation depicting a nude or partially nude person or depicting a person engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is intended by the person depicted in the representation to be captured, viewed, or possessed only by the person who, with the consent of the person depicted, captured the representation or to whom the person depicted directly and intentionally gave possession of the representation.
**While I'd expect it to go no where there is a phrase 'you may not do the time but you will ride the ride' and I'd look forward to sitting in the gallery watching Hamboned ride the ride and the dollars flowing out of his pocket. And I've not wasted any time looking for caselaw at this point.
This is not the 1st time he's messed with WI 942.09. Last time was with Reviewtech USA.
Eliza isn't under 18 in that video Hamboned used based on published timelines. But 942 also talks about consent:
"A person suffering from a mental illness or defect that impairs capacity to appraise personal conduct."
Eliza is claiming drug use - enough for perhaps that element to be satisfied.
So while there is almost surely a contract thus making consent arguable for the image Hamboned used. But Hamboned didn't bother to reach out to WorldStar and buy the right to make the image post.
Nor did Hambone lacking explicit posting rights go down to Target and bought a dumptruck and doll and pose them like a still from the image and ask Eliza about the video. Could have even made an arts and crafts video about the simulated image.
If he'd had bought even limited rights he'd have avoided 942.09(3m) part 'knows that the person depicted does not consent to the posting or publication of the private representation*.' Worldstar strongly has the rights to make posts of the images. Not so much for Hamboned - how would the claim of fair use 'news' work given the Hamboned past postings on journalism? Buying limited rights would have 'gave possession' and Eliza would have to show the contract didn't allow Hamboned rights access due to reduced capacity at the time of signing.
Taking a picture with a toy and a doll or even the doll and some sand from sandbags or even just pink paint background would have allowed him to get clicks from the mockery of having to do such things just to avoid Eliza's striking. Coulda even gone for the adult swim Robot Chicken look.
Perhaps other state statutes would allow Eliza to make claims that concern the providers enough to pull down the images as the cost of taking them down is FAR lower than having a legal fight over them. For whatever reason her removal concerns are being honored.
If Hamboned had bothered to buy limited rights he'd have been better positioned. Instead we'll get to watch Hamboned beg for money yet again 'to totally take this to court'. His truck is getting old and needs replacement after all.
And if there is a legal fight this could get expensive and perhaps create caselaw*.
*“Private representation" means a representation depicting a nude or partially nude person or depicting a person engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is intended by the person depicted in the representation to be captured, viewed, or possessed only by the person who, with the consent of the person depicted, captured the representation or to whom the person depicted directly and intentionally gave possession of the representation.
**While I'd expect it to go no where there is a phrase 'you may not do the time but you will ride the ride' and I'd look forward to sitting in the gallery watching Hamboned ride the ride and the dollars flowing out of his pocket. And I've not wasted any time looking for caselaw at this point.
A criminal charge would require the prosecutor proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was in fact under the influence. I dont see that being the case, plus it opens her up to a potential cross examination would it not? That seems excessively dangerous for someone who is having an exceptionally hard time standing up to current scrutiny. While the cross might be limited in scope I'd imagine there is probably enough rope for her to hang herself and open doors to further embarrass herself.
I think ole hamboner will blow some cash if it comes to fruition but as you point out its unlikely to really result in a beat down of the hamboner.
its ok though did you know he had a coffee company DID YOU KNOW - WE HAVE 10,000 ORGANIC TEAS THAT FUCK YOU UP THE ASS AND WILL CURE CANCER. People would be dumb enough to contribute to a gofundme for this shit
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
That would be for the various felonies where consent with respect to the captured image.
But the class A misdemeanor?
Posts, publishes, or causes to be posted or published, a private representation if the actor knows that the person depicted does not consent to the posting or publication of the private representation.
There consent is about the posting of a 'private representation'. Private representation that matches is:
“Private representation" means a representation depicting a nude or partially nude person
Now one needs to look up what "nude" means. And Eliza was a nudie in that video....
948.11(1)(d) (d) “Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
That "or buttocks" is what's doing the work. Seems underboob is also nudity.
Now lets circle back to private in posting or publication of the private representation.
Looking at private - that is intended by the person depicted in the representation to be captured, viewed, or possessed only by the person who, with the consent of the person depicted, captured the representation or to whom the person depicted directly and intentionally gave possession of the representation.
Worldstar must have the rights to post. But Hamboned? Did he have permission? Hamboned didn't use his grift bucks to buy rights otherwise he'd have been squealing about the issue. It is VERY FUCKING REASONABLE to believe Eliza waves the privacy part because Worldstar music video. (State V Nelson 2006 is caselaw that appears to matter but again - have not looked deeply. Why? Don't think a jury would convict and I'm not the DA or any parties lawyer.) But without the contracts being in front of us, we don't know in the legal sense. And the word is the Worldstar video is removed from the youtubes.
The criminal charge needs to have a conviction. And while a jury is a crap shoot I'd like to think a jury of 12 people would not convict on 942.09 because it was a fucking damn music video still which was god damned public for over 1/2 a decade.
TL; DR
Hamboned is a sloppy drunk who lacks respect for the laws and he's gonna get his ham boned because he keeps pulling shit trying to be an edgelord.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2022
Uh, yeah. Good luck prosecuting that.
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2022
Then why did you also say, "Hamboned is a sloppy drunk who lacks respect for the laws and he's gonna get his ham boned because he keeps pulling shit trying to be an edgelord"?
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
Because he doesn't. The various "give aways" he's done show this. The drunk driving shows this.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
This is complicated by the fact that the Quarterpounder may not have "posted" the video in the legal sense. There is a lot of weird shit in the law about "deep links" which include embedded YT videos and embedded pictures from other people's websites.
A famous example of this legal theory was around Google images, which was sued over deep linking content from image databases. Google images won (obviously). One of their arguments was that even though the image is displayed on their webpage, they aren't actually copying the image because they are just linking to it.
The Quarterpounder is in the same (or better) position here - he's not re-hosting or re-posting the content, just linking to it. What makes his position even stronger is that he isn't responsible for the "deep link" when Twitter puts his post up - Twitter does that, and doesn't do that for all web links (I'm pretty sure they don't generally do it for porn).
AIUI he has not clipped the video or otherwise copied it, which would get into weirder territory, but he just linked to it.
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
And there is a difference between statue law and a contract created by TOS.
TOS lets 'em allow or not allow whatever twat show up on the platform.
The 'I'm gonna call your dad' quote Hamboned made should be clipped. Its got the potential to meme up there with 'peed in my basement'.
From a reaction stream:
um I actually don't think so is Tim pool bald yeah super bald bro
51:46
full cul-de-sac CEO of Black Rifle coffee just texted me my plan tomorrow is to reach out to
51:53
Eliza Blue's father I'm not I'm not playing around
51:58
people think I'm bald but I'm not oh this part's painful this part's painful
TheQuartering - if he doesn't like what you'll say he'll call your dad!
I didn't see the post that got him locked out on Twatter. Was that a link or a clip he uploaded to twatter?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
He linked the original youtube video. He didn't post a separate clip.
"Deep linking" is not about Twitter's TOS, it's about the law. The term comes from copyright law. Either way, there needs to be some notion of "posting" for Mr Hamburglar to get fucked by the law you cited, and the notion of "deep linking = posting" would be the only way.
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
So why the hell did the reactions to the twat-blocking not mention that?
Or when Hamboned spoke about how he couldn't delete the pic because it was already deleted wasn't about the link?
Linking elsewhere is WAY fucking different than taking a screenshot.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
Jeremy, I know you have a copy of HL on your Steam account. Don’t lie.
Well Intentioned
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2018
Cos he's a dumbfuck who will eventually veer into doing something incredibly stupid. This is an example of the long and documented pattern of retarded behavior and poor decisions of one Jeremiah Hambeast.
Whether it's him getting banned on Twitter/YouTube and watching his 'platform' evaporate into thin air, divorcing his wife cos she discovered she really likes going out for pizza, suffering a stroke cos he's a deathfat alcoholic or running into some sort of legal hurdle, something is gonna happen to him.
Not everyone is as #blessed as DSP.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2022
Regarding the recent Tim Pool drama, from Tim Pools thread
TL;DR
Tim invited Hambly to be on again after the Adam fiasco bit cancelled at the last minute. But then the night he was supposed to appear he was on another podcast (Chrissy Mair?).
Tim also got offended at the Jack Murphy edits as well as supposedly Jeremy threatened Tim some time ago. Tim also says Jeremy is not his friend
AutoClownMaker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
During the Twat 9/11 Elon Musk drunk stepdown now deleted video Hamboned mention how he has no friends.
There is a reason. How he treats others is he will pull shit like he does with the Dim Fool or his Gina proposed screenplay or the sex tape talk with women he interacts with.
The threat part is because Hamboned wants to have plausible deniability with his actions and has elements of his followers who will take a statement of 'do not attack/interact with this person' as a desire to have the person be fucked with. The only way for Hamboned to not have someone interacted with his followers is to never mention them. One day Hamboned will attract the attention of someone who will piss Hamboned off enough so they are the target of Hamboned videos and the resulting attacks by the Hamboned followers will then get Hamboned boned.
And Hamboned is right - Tim's business model is demonstrating how one can be more separated from the 'big tech' tent.