Interesting parts (also sorta summary of the 18 page transcript) from the transcript of the hearing for Nick's special motion to dismiss:
Nick's lawyer (Randazza) points out that Nick had once insulted his law partner and calls him a "legal comedian". Calls him both the "triumph" of the legal profession, as well as the "insult comic dog"
He then immediately, and I mean
immediately, starts talking about Two Girls one Cup and tries to loosely tie it to Montagraph.
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after)
Bravely asserts that it was not Alex Jones that declared that Sandy Hooks was fake, but Montegraph. He then procceeds to mention that Montegraph has threantened Dr. Fauci (lol)
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after, and in general cleaned up)
He asserts that Nick and Montegraph have been in a fight since 2019 and has had defamed Nick. Why did he say all of the above? To assert that Montegraph is a public figure:
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after)
He then proceeds to talk about Montegraphs claims that he will use his CIA connections to attack his enemies:
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after, and in general cleaned up)
He then returns back to the public figure issue and lays out the standard for Defamation considering Montegraphs factual (as Randazza asserts) public figure status.
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph after)
He focuses specifically on the watermelon comment. The pedo comments are seemingly lumped in with Nick's other jokes.
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before)
Next he talks about invoking Colorado's anti-slap law.
(I highlighted some parts I found important in the argument on the larger image)
He asserts that applying Colorado law would "create one great distinction between Minnesota law and Colorado law). Interestingly he talks about Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling invalidating it's own anti-slap law.
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after)
He calls the case a "joke" and asserts that Montograph voluntarily entered into a verbal fight with Nick, lost, and sued because he didn't like his loss.
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after)
The Plaintiff's lawyer's response attacks the constitutionality argument. He agrees that the burden is indeed lower than in the Minnesota law that was found unconstitutional, but still asserts it would not be constitutional
Personally I think the last image is the most persuasive part of his argument.
Furthermore, Schneider doesn't want to focus on the watermelon comment, but instead on the pedophile comment which he asserts is defamatory because Montagraph hasn't been charged with pedophilia
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after, and in general cleaned up)
He accuses Nick of threatening to rape Schneider and his client (lmao), compares him with Alex Jones, and accuses him of creating an "online eight factory" (wtf?)
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before)
He also attacks the Public Figure argument by asserting that there has never been a "public controversy before" because he has never heard of Montagraph before. Furthermore (and in my opinion more importantly) he attacks that this slapfight could not qualify as a "public controversy."
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after)
He makes what I believe is MASSIVE mistake for his IIED claim. He admits that Nick's words "hasn't [...] generated [any medical records showing harm]". That by itself kills the IIED claim.
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after)
He also asserts that the Discovery is important and he wants it. He then asks for the court to dismiss the motion, and order discovery:
(screenshot edited to remove the irrelevant parts from the paragraph before and after, and in general cleaned up)
Nick's lawyer asks to be able to respond, and the Judge says no.
So was I. They couldn't have made it any less clear
Though is this new? I don't recall seeing this person in previous documents but I may have missed it.
I think it might be
