Weeb Wars / AnimeGate / #KickVic / #IStandWithVic / #vickicksback - General Discussion Thread

Well looks like ANN is in Shut It Down mode now. Remember guys, Vic suing people is a wild conspiracy theory and completely unfounded. Don't spread those obviously false rumors and tinfoil hat nonsense.

View attachment 705446
They are beyond delusional. This is hysteria.
"Talking about the inevitable future isn't allowed, because that's a conspiracy theory!"
Really? Why would Vic hire a lawyer if he wasn't planning on suing? People don't blow money on representation for no reason.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen yet.
 
Really? Why would Vic hire a lawyer if he wasn't planning on suing? People don't blow money on representation for no reason.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen yet.
And not just any lawyer. BHBH has a lot of experience with litigation and has political connections. One of their senior members is a Texas Senator for crying out loud. I'd understand the sentiment if Vic hired some ambulance chaser out of the phonebook or something, but not BHBH.
 
They are beyond delusional. This is hysteria.
"Talking about the inevitable future isn't allowed, because that's a conspiracy theory!"
Really? Why would Vic hire a lawyer if he wasn't planning on suing? People don't blow money on representation for no reason.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen yet.

No surprise considering the source.

I'm actually surprised at the reckless behavior and insipid reactions to Ty's statements with Nick. Any reasonable person with a lick of life experience or wisdom has to know that at least some of what he's said in public is TAILORED to get specific responses which would aid his client's impending case.

Obviously.

EDIT: For instance, and this is probably a poor example, the Iago and Igor names. The team already KNOWS who they are, but once they get those court ordered discoveries, which will include things like Twitter handing over the deleted materials of specific users, it'll make BHBH's job much easier to make or reinforce their case if they see somebody assuming or being labeled Iago in the time frame after Nick's video released. The Iago codename release could even be used as bait to draw out an agent they aren't sure about, or to establish further connections based on his/her communications if they are sure about it. Stuff like that. Ty is a wargamer after all.
 
Last edited:
And not just any lawyer. BHBH has a lot of experience with litigation and has political connections. One of their senior members is a Texas Senator for crying out loud. I'd understand the sentiment if Vic hired some ambulance chaser out of the phonebook or something, but not BHBH.

I just want to be absolutely confident on this. I don't want to be blindsided by something unexpected when this case gets going. It is true that if you sue for defamation in Texas, the defendant has to prove that the statements are true through defense by truth, yes? (with source) All I've been seeing online is that the plaintiff has to prove that the claims are false, Texas or federally, which sounds stupid at glance.

Is Ty going to incorporate the fact that all these claims against Vic are unsubstantiated in his lawsuit papers?
 
They are beyond delusional. This is hysteria.
"Talking about the inevitable future isn't allowed, because that's a conspiracy theory!"
Really? Why would Vic hire a lawyer if he wasn't planning on suing? People don't blow money on representation for no reason.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen yet.

It's incredibly stupid denial but I've seen it since Vic announced he was lawyering up. They live in a la-la fantasy land where you'd burn tens of thousands of dollars retaining an extremely expensive and capable lawyer and prepping for a lawsuit but then don't follow through on it because you were just trying to intimidate your enemies, so if they 'stay strong' Vic will just give up, throw his money away, and slink off into the shadows.

Granted, they keep lighting their money on fire by lining up for lawsuits, breaking their contracts and literally just spiting themselves by not showing up for a con just to jab at Vic...so I guess they don't find it weird to throw money away on a stupid and pointless flex.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mathas
I just want to be absolutely confident on this. I don't want to be blindsided by something unexpected when this case gets going. It is true that if you sue for defamation in Texas, the defendant has to prove that the statements are true through defense by truth, yes? (with source) All I've been seeing online is that the plaintiff has to prove that the claims are false, Texas or federally, which sounds stupid at glance.

Is Ty going to incorporate the fact that all these claims against Vic are unsubstantiated in his lawsuit papers?

iirc, all that needs to be proved is malicious intent and damage in TX. Truth is no defense.

EDIT: Regarding tortious interference in TX with business relationships.
 
I just want to be absolutely confident on this. I don't want to be blindsided by something unexpected when this case gets going. It is true that if you sue for defamation in Texas, the defendant has to prove that the statements are true through defense by truth, yes? (with source) All I've been seeing online is that the plaintiff has to prove that the claims are false, Texas or federally, which sounds stupid at glance.

Is Ty going to incorporate the fact that all these claims against Vic are unsubstantiated in his lawsuit papers?
For defamation, truth is a defense. If I blare on social media that Scott Freeman is a pedophile who had child porn on his computer, he couldn't sue me for defamation because it's a truthful statement.

In a roundabout way, the plaintiff does have to prove the statements as false. However, the only proof he needs to give is a statement, sworn under oath, that he did not do X, Y, or Z. Now the burden on the proof is on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff did X, Y, and Z, and they have to exceed the evidence of the plaintiff (e.g. his sword statement). That means in addition to making their own sworn statements that the plaintiff did in fact do X, Y, and Z, they need some other form of proof.

In this case, they would pretty much need video evidence of Vic dry humping Machi's leg or Vic dragging Monica into his hotel room or whatever. I assume if malice and/or conspiracy is proven even additional eyewitness testimony would be scrutinized.
 
Last edited:
For defamation, truth is a defense. If I blare on social media that Scott Freeman is a pedophile who had child porn on his computer, he couldn't sue me for defamation because it's a truthful statement.

In a roundabout way, the plaintiff does have to prove the statements as false. However, the only proof he needs to give is a statement, sworn under oath, that he did not do X, Y, or Z. Now the burden on the proof is on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff did X, Y, and Z, and they have to exceed the evidence of the plaintiff (e.g. his sword statement). That means in addition to making their own sworn statements that the plaintiff did in fact do X, Y, and Z, they need some other form of proof.

In this case, they would pretty much need video evidence of Vic dry humping Machi's leg or Vic dragging Monica into his hotel room or whatever. I assume if malice and/or conspiracy is proven even eyewitness testimony would be criticized.
I think they got Malice proved for a few key players. Marchi's Balls and Head statement, MoRon both interfering with Vics contract in Kameha Con, Plus anyone else involved in that Kameha Con incident if they said anything. Also to me it sounded like the number of tweets could also count towards malice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GnomeofDoc
For defamation, truth is a defense. If I blare on social media that Scott Freeman is a pedophile who had child porn on his computer, he couldn't sue me for defamation because it's a truthful statement.

In a roundabout way, the plaintiff does have to prove the statements as false. However, the only proof he needs to give is a statement, sworn under oath, that he did not do X, Y, or Z. Now the burden on the proof is on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff did X, Y, and Z, and they have to exceed the evidence of the plaintiff (e.g. his sword statement). That means in addition to making their own sworn statements that the plaintiff did in fact do X, Y, and Z, they need some other form of proof.

In this case, they would pretty much need video evidence of Vic dry humping Machi's leg or Vic dragging Monica into his hotel room or whatever. I assume if malice and/or conspiracy is proven even additional eyewitness testimony would be scrutinized.

Interesting. Not sure where I got it in my head otherwise. (Restatement Second of Torts § 772 in TX SC or some of Nick's commentary?)

Bah, I'm no lawyer. I'm sure the Ty Marbo and the Amazons have it covered.
 
For defamation, truth is a defense. If I blare on social media that Scott Freeman is a pedophile who had child porn on his computer, he couldn't sue me for defamation because it's a truthful statement.

In a roundabout way, the plaintiff does have to prove the statements as false. However, the only proof he needs to give is a statement, sworn under oath, that he did not do X, Y, or Z. Now the burden on the proof is on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff did X, Y, and Z, and they have to exceed the evidence of the plaintiff (e.g. his sword statement). That means in addition to making their own sworn statements that the plaintiff did in fact do X, Y, and Z, they need some other form of proof.

In this case, they would pretty much need video evidence of Vic dry humping Machi's leg or Vic dragging Monica into his hotel room or whatever. I assume if malice and/or conspiracy is proven even eyewitness testimony would be criticized.
If they're moving forward with the "evidence" we've seen so far, I don't think Vic will have much difficulty proving defamation. There's no evidence. He hasn't been convicted of anything. He's never even been accused by the courts. Rumors and secondhand testimony isn't evidence. It's hearsay.
Once that's established, I think that the TI case will become the meat and potatoes. You can't plot, form a civil conspiracy and ruin people's contracts, careers, and lives like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt
Interesting. Not sure where I got it in my head otherwise. (Restatement Second of Torts § 772 in TX SC or some of Nick's commentary?)

Bah, I'm no lawyer. I'm sure the Ty Marbo and the Amazons have it covered.
I'm just parroting what Nick's been saying, and I assume he wouldn't fuck up that badly.

Also I specifically said defamation. I think you're right that truth is not a defense in tortoise interference.

Man, the whole Vic thing (by way of Rekieta and Beard) has taught me more about law than all my years of school combined. Who said anime couldn't be valuable :story:

I think they got Malice proved for a few key players. Marchi's Balls and Head statement, MoRon both interfering with Vics contract in Kameha Con, Plus anyone else involved in that Kameha Con incident if they said anything. Also to me it sounded like the number of tweets could also count towards malice.
I remember during the Head And Balls tweet people were jumping on Marchi for incitement to violence or something. As crude as the tweet was I laughed at anyone unironically trying to arrest Marchi for it. But you're right, what it does prove is malice. That statement is evidence that Jamie does not like Vic, and thus there's a motive for her to defame him.

If they're moving forward with the "evidence" we've seen so far, I don't think Vic will have much difficulty proving defamation. There's no evidence. He hasn't been convicted of anything. He's never even been accused by the courts. Rumors and secondhand testimony isn't evidence. It's hearsay.
Once that's established, I think that the TI case will become the meat and potatoes. You can't plot, form a civil conspiracy and ruin people's contracts, careers, and lives like this.
He's also a Christian who by all appearances practices what he preaches. Plus he's a former LEO. Plus he has zero run ins with the law; no arrests or even police reports. He looks and acts like a lovable geeky uncle. A Texas jury will love him.
 
Last edited:
If they're moving forward with the "evidence" we've seen so far, I don't think Vic will have much difficulty proving defamation. There's no evidence. He hasn't been convicted of anything. He's never even been accused by the courts. Rumors and secondhand testimony isn't evidence. It's hearsay.
Once that's established, I think that the TI case will become the meat and potatoes. You can't plot, form a civil conspiracy and ruin people's contracts, careers, and lives like this.
Yea what Ty said is kind of scary. Granted paraphrasing, We already have the information but you dont know what we have. Now let me ask you this "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" question right here.

He's also a Christian who by all appearances practices what he preaches. Plus he's a former LEO. Plus he has zero run ins with the law; no arrests or even police reports. A Texas jury will love him.
wait wait wait Vic is a former Law Enforcement Officer?
 
  • Ian Sinclair - Whis
I suspect the next one to drop will be one of these. Or Josh Martin - Majin Buu
Notably quiet, rarely tweets & as far as I've seen has not said anything about Vic. Maybe I'm being hopeful that he won't cuck out because I met him at a bar before & was cool.
 
Also I specifically said defamation. I think you're right that truth is not a defense in tortoise interference.

Man, the whole Vic thing (by way of Rekieta and Beard) has taught me more about law than all my years of school combined. Who said anime couldn't be valuable :story:

Ah, Yes. I was thinking TI specifically.

No doubt about the interest. I've never been into law drama but I can't stop following Nick's videos on this subject. I watched some of his previous stuff but ever since Ty Marbo and Adepta Sororitas joined in I've been glued to this shit.
 
wait wait wait Vic is a former Law Enforcement Officer?
Yup. From his resume (which you need to download)

1986-1988 OCEAN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Ocean City, Maryland.
Police Officer. Reported to Captian of division. Responsible for carrying out duties of an officer of the law. Also placed in charge of producing/ directing all PSAs, commercials, training videos, and industrial videos for the department.

Even as a cop he was on camera :story:

Ah, Yes. I was thinking TI specifically.

No doubt about the interest. I've never been into law drama but I can't stop following Nick's videos on this subject. I watched some of his previous stuff but ever since Ty Marbo and Adepta Sororitas joined in I've been glued to this shit.
Word. Before seeing catching a video of his (I think it was the first video where he talked with the Earthworm Jim guy) I even though Vic has no possible recourse and his only chance was to duck down for a few years before trying to make a comeback. Then I saw how defamation worked. Hell, Nick's channel was the first time I've even heard of tortoise interference.

Then I thought maybe Vic had a case, and we could laugh all the way to the courthouse.
 
Back