I don't buy for one second that Tammy didn't want to take this to higher civil Court for any reason other than that civil court process is a bitch to navigate for the Layperson, and therefore most people will need a lawyer's guidance. Small claims is meant to be self-navigable by everyone.
Even in defamation
per se, where you don't need to prove you have special damages (actual quantifiable out of pocket loss), most people drastically over-value their general damages without a Lawyer who knows the local court giving them advice.
Just to reiterate regarding her odd venue choice(I believe it may have been posted, but it bears repeating):
1. recovery of money based on contract or tort, including subrogation claims
2. actions to replevy personal property
3. action in the nature of interpleader as provided in Section 2022
4. The above list is not exhaustive but does contain most of the common claims. The following claims MAY NOT be filed in small claims court: libel, slander, professional malpractice, assigned claims, and punitive damages.
Emphasis mine. So I'd love to know what Tammy's actual plan is here. She certainly seem to be dealing with a major, potentially insurmountable, issue in terms of her case being heard in small claims. I can't imagine if it gets dismissed without prejudice with instructions to refile in higher court it would be worth the cost versus recovery for Tammy.
Also, since we're discussing the Law. The comments suggesting reactors should sue for the copyright strikes are really dumb. For one YouTube is allowed to be stricter than the law in their moderation of their site and what they feel is a violation. And secondly
Fair Dealing/Use is an AFFIRMATIVE defense. In other words the content is
only Fair Use in a legally meaningful sense when a court decides the defendant has proven it so as part of a ruling in a copyright suit. You can't declare your work Fair Use like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. It's a defense the Court determines. You can assume your work fits the criteria; but US IP law is intentionally written to allow subjectivity in judgments, it can be a slippery Beast. (Look at the the madness of the
Cariou v Prince ruling and it's, thankfully, subsequent reversal in decisions of the past few years)
So trying to sue for tortious interference because you lost your YT Channel, or a monetized video was removed, based on a copyright claim being ,false'/malicious, versus simply an appeal for YT to review is going to be a serious legal challenge. Not least of all because YT is a private Sandbox with their own guidelines that may be stricter than the federal law, and you have no guaranteed right to play in it, and therefore earn money by it. They reviewed and agreed with complaint if they removed the material.
I think a claim by any Reactor would be a legal long shot.
(Edit: sorry for the Typos, in a rush. Hopefully fixed the worst)
touching. But why not? He claims to live an hour away, and if you’ve ever done Route 66, you’ll know that OK is fucking huge and a long way from anywhere. FFS, let the guy take advantage of his proximity. I’d be willing to bet he’d sit there quietly and report back. Maybe sneak some pictures as she arrives or leaves. He’d be unlikely to interact. He certainly wouldn’t break into her apartment and kidnap her dog and cats (even though many of us would want him to do just that.)
