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

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Yeah, I think the VAs who haven't said squat are the ones most likely to come out unscathed, no matter who wins the trial in the end. Whereas Monica, the two Jamies, DC Douchebag, and the like are busy flapping their gums about what a cunt Vic supposedly is, sane people like Laura Bailey, Travis Willingham, Cherami Leigh, Kyle Hebert and Chuck Huber remain silent and are spared the wrath of both sides, keeping them firmly out of controversy and able to continue their roles without any bullshit to tear them out of it.

Justin Cook is going to look clean. He doesn't have a social media account! lol

 

[AnOminous]

Red & Dit
Do 1705 and 1720 even hold sway?

Why the hell would California statutes apply in the least to a Texas defamation case tried in Texas in a Texas court according to Texas law?

 

[TheClappening]

Why the hell would California statutes apply in the least to a Texas defamation case tried in Texas in a Texas court according to Texas law?

You tell me.

I'm here trying to decipher legalese.

 

[JosephTX]

@Captain Manning I assume you're more versed in legalese than me if not can you provide this to nick to simplify since this ia too tl;dr for me.

Texas Pattern Jury Charges: Business, Consumer, Insurance and Employment

Guide listing pattern jury charges to assist the bench and bar in preparing the court's charge in the state of Texas, including definitions, instructions, and questions needed to submit jury charges. Indexes to statutes and rules cited, cases cited, and subjects start on page 15.

texashistory.unt.edu

Page 251: Torturous Interference PJC Chapter 106

Page 333: Civil Conspiracy PJC Chapter 109

Page 339: Defamation PJC Chapter 110

 

[ProtecSpeedwagon]

Why the hell would California statutes apply in the least to a Texas defamation case tried in Texas in a Texas court according to Texas law?

Getting weird flash backs to Meyer/Waid.

 

[Immortal Technique]

Marzgurl just killing it in twitch

 

[AnOminous]

@Captain Manning I assume you're more versed in legalese than me if not can you provide this to nick to simplify since this ia too tl;dr for me.

Texas Pattern Jury Charges: Business, Consumer, Insurance and Employment

Guide listing pattern jury charges to assist the bench and bar in preparing the court's charge in the state of Texas, including definitions, instructions, and questions needed to submit jury charges. Indexes to statutes and rules cited, cases cited, and subjects start on page 15.

texashistory.unt.edu

Page 251: Torturous Interference PJC Chapter 106

Page 333: Civil Conspiracy PJC Chapter 109

Page 339: Defamation PJC Chapter 110

Those aren't obligatory, but if you use the pattern instructions, you're usually going to be safe from an appeal on the grounds that the jury was not properly instructed.

Depending on the details of the case, one lawyer or another can request modifications to the instructions, or special instructions, or instructions to disregard certain evidence or not to interpret it in a certain way, and the judge ultimately chooses what the jury is instructed to do.

 

[Allanon]

Marzgurl just killing it in twitchView attachment 732255

That's deceptive. Basically no one watches previous videos on Twitch, which is why they auto-delete broadcasts after a few days. Even when people follow the process required to save those videos, they still don't get views unless they're a super mega streamer or the stream is something that would provide incentive to rewatch it (tutorials on things, proper traveling vlogs, director's commentary streams about popular videos, stuff that you'd put on Youtube). Real views are shown in the average views per stream count, Like an inverse Youtube.

MarzGurl - Streamer Overview & Stats

Overview of marzgurl activities, statistics, played games and past streams.

twitchtracker.com

As you can see here, she's got a far more respectable 49 peak viewers over the past three months. And I'm at least ninety percent sure they're not bots, because no one would waste their money on that few.

 

[Urbanmech]

Well @A Name But Backwards the jig is up. PULL caught onto you specifically Arrancar_nel

 

[BoxofMonkeys]

http://archive.li/J973V/image . Probably late but this seems to contradict a lot of his earlier statements.

 

[TherapyMan]

Red & Dit
Do 1705 and 1720 even hold sway?

View attachment 732204

Is anything about the above even true? Pretty sure Ty answered those in the initial complaint

Even if that person is correct, it doesn't take into account the TI component of the lawsuit - which is where the major component of damages will come from. Truth is not a defence to TI. Nick and Ty have said this repeatedly.

This is a weird fucking way to explain it, and I don't know why he's using Californian law, but it's sort of accurate in sort of a technical sense, but mostly sort of wrong. Defamation in Texas requires the plaintiff to prove through the preponderance of evidence:

(1) publication of a false statement of fact to a third party
(2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff
(3) with the requisite degree of fault (actual malice for public figures, negligence for private individuals)
(4) that proximately caused damages.

Source: Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 618 (Tex. 2018 ).

That being said, it's a bit more complicated than he's making it out to be. Traditionally, common-law defamation presumed that the defamatory statement was false, and truth was an affirmative defense for the defendant. However, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that when a case implicates First Amendment rights (e.g. case involves public official, the media, or a matter of public concern), the burden is on plaintiff to prove the falsity of the statement. If the case does not implicate the First Amendment, the common-law principles can apply.

Source: Van Der Linden v. Khan, 535 S.W.ed 179, 198 (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

I'm too lazy to do the requisite research to figure out what the technical definition of "matter of public concern", but my general inclination from the scant research I have done indicates that this case doesn't implicate First Amendment rights,

A case that plainly illustrates how the OP is wrong is Cummins v. Bat World Sanctuary, NO. 02–12–00285–CV, 2015 WL 1641144 (Tex. Ct. App. April 9, 2015). Basically, Cummins, plaintiff, a former intern published defamatory statements on social media about the President of Bat Sanctuary, defendant, one of which included allegations that the Bat President neglected her dogs, never graduated high school, killed her bats through incompetence, etc. The Court in affirming summary judgment stated that Cummins had to prove her statements' truthfulness, Cummins' didn't shift the burden to the Bat President since it was not a "matter of public concern", and the Bat President didn't have to prove her statement's falsity.

 

[AnOminous]

However, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that when a case implicates First Amendment rights (e.g. case involves public official, the media, or a matter of public concern), the burden is on plaintiff to prove the falsity of the statement.

However, the burden is relatively easily satisfied for anything where the plaintiff has personal knowledge of it, as he need merely testify as to its falsity. Under oath: "I have never raped anyone. I did not rape anyone on the night of whatever." Etc.

As it's judged by a preponderance of the evidence, any evidence at all more than a scintilla, such as the plaintiff's own sworn statement, will stand on its own unless the defendant produces some actual proof.

At the point the evidence starts adding up, the relative credibility of the witnesses gets taken into consideration by the trier of fact, whether that is the judge or jury.

Every single witness for the defense we know about can be eviscerated and crucified on cross examination and all of them have demonstrably and frequently lied, sometimes outrageously.

 

[Allanon]

View attachment 732265

http://archive.li/J973V/image . Probably late but this seems to contradict a lot of his earlier statements.

Shane is being a weird Shane again, no idea what he's trying to say. But it's too late for Ron to retract those claims now. I'm surehe thinks he can bring that into court and say 'see? I was never an agent! I never knew! Ignore my previous comments!' but that mattered when the damage was being done, not after the lawsuit started. Now it doesn't matter.

 

[Urbanmech]

Shane is being a weird Shane again, no idea what he's trying to say. But it's too late for Ron to retract those claims now. I'm surehe thinks he can bring that into court and say 'see? I was never an agent! I never knew! Ignore my previous comments!' but that mattered when the damage was being done, not after the lawsuit started. Now it doesn't matter.

I think he is implying Anti-SLAPP will win the case for the 4 dumbasses.

And curious can the defendants do discovery on Vic? just curious because they seem to believe in that.

 

[Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed]

However, the burden is relatively easily satisfied for anything where the plaintiff has personal knowledge of it, as he need merely testify as to its falsity. Under oath: "I have never raped anyone. I did not rape anyone on the night of whatever." Etc.

As it's judged by a preponderance of the evidence, any evidence at all more than a scintilla, such as the plaintiff's own sworn statement, will stand on its own unless the defendant produces some actual proof.

At the point the evidence starts adding up, the relative credibility of the witnesses gets taken into consideration by the trier of fact, whether that is the judge or jury.

Every single witness for the defense we know about can be eviscerated and crucified on cross examination and all of them have demonstrably and frequently lied, sometimes outrageously.

This. Vic's testimony is "proof".

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/evidence-defamation-lawsuit.html

Then, they need the "Truth" defense to defend the defamation allegations against them.

https://www.texaspress.com/law-a-the-media-in-texas-libel-defenses-01

 

[repentance]

And curious can the defendants do discovery on Vic? just curious because they seem to believe in that.

Yes but it has to be relevant to the case. Nick mentioned that Ty would have asked Vic what the worst thing which could come out during the case is before formulating a strategy. Ty would go forward assuming that will come out.

 

[AnOminous]

Yes but it has to be relevant to the case. Nick mentioned that Ty would have asked Vic what the worst thing which could come out during the case is before formulating a strategy. Ty would go forward assuming that will come out.

If after hearing it, Ty felt that it would be a huge disaster for Vic, he would not have recommended going forward with a suit. Assuming, and there is no reason not to, that Ty has some idea what he's doing, this lawsuit is not going to be a disaster for Vic, but win or lose, it is going to be an enormous, life wrecking disaster for any defendants who continue to act like idiotic apes.

 

[repentance]

If after hearing it, Ty felt that it would be a huge disaster for Vic, he would not have recommended going forward with a suit. Assuming, and there is no reason not to, that Ty has some idea what he's doing, this lawsuit is not going to be a disaster for Vic, but win or lose, it is going to be an enormous, life wrecking disaster for any defendants who continue to act like idiotic apes.

I think one thing the defendants really don't understand is that whatever strategies they're planning in their heads aren't how this is going to go. Their lawyers are going to spend a lot of time telling them "you can't actually do that" and rejecting their game plans.

 

[Empty Donation Box]

If after hearing it, Ty felt that it would be a huge disaster for Vic, he would not have recommended going forward with a suit. Assuming, and there is no reason not to, that Ty has some idea what he's doing, this lawsuit is not going to be a disaster for Vic, but win or lose, it is going to be an enormous, life wrecking disaster for any defendants who continue to act like idiotic apes.

I'm of Nick's mindset that it's going to be an enormous life wrecking disaster for the defendants period. They almost certainly were given the chance to settle before now. They didn't take it.

 

[AnOminous]

I think one thing the defendants really don't understand is that whatever strategies they're planning in their heads aren't how this is going to go.

As Mike Tyson said: "Everyone's got a plan til he gets punched in the mouth."