Here's a question, I know Nick is black out blasted but what is his issue with the Judge's ruling? He must have some idea racking around in that empty head of his that he is trying to get out but my inability to understand drunk retard and my lack of knowledge on the law means that I have no idea what he's even talking about.
The next phase of the court process is "discovery". Its a process of gathering information and getting depositions from people before a trial might happen. Nick contends that discovery is unnecessary. That the case is obviously without any merit whatsoever and the judge should just end the case immediately. The judge disagreed and said the case should proceed to discovery.
Why does Nick think the case is without merit. Basically because he has convinced himself of things that are not true about what he did and what the law is. This includes:
1) Rather than stating that Monty was engaging in pedo acts, Nick claims he said Monty was "probably" engaging in them. And because he said probably, its an opinion and not defamation. The issue for Nick is that this is a lie. He didn't say probably. He made a statement of fact that Monty was doing pedo acts.
2) Nick says that if someone is accused of being a pedo, they have an obligation in any defamation case of proving beyond any doubt that they are NOT a pedo. That rather than Nick having to prove that Monty is a pedo to back up his statement, Monty has to prove that he is not a pedo to Nick. This has no basis in law or reason.
3) Nick doesn't understand the concept of "per se" defamation under the law and what it means in terms of proving damages. Nick thinks that Monty must explicitly prove he was damaged for there to be a valid case. Nick just doesn't understand the law here. "per se" defamation assumes that the defaming statement was of such a nature that damages can be assumed.
4) Nick claims that discovery in the case is meaningless because all the facts associated with the case are already known. Nick comes to this conclusion through circular logic. Because the case is baseless, there can be facts to discover in the case beyond the facts necessary to dismiss the case as baseless.
Part of the reason IMO for Nick's breakdown last night was that Nick's false self-gaslit view of the world came into conflict with the real world in the form of the appeals court ruling. And when that happens, Nick falls apart. Its not much different than how he mentally collapsed after he was challenged on his attorney credentials by Eric July.