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

mindlessobserver said:
They literally have a court order to go to Jamie Marchies house with a hammer and nails and pound the lawsuit into the door like Martin Luther and his 99 theses. Fucking lol. I hope they passive aggressively Nail each chapter of the lawsuit and its attached appendixes separately so it is just covered.
Click to expand...
95 not 99
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Next Task, Zero Day Defense, Clockwork Dragon and 2 others
Monkey Prick said:
Heres the thing: What if she only left for con appearances and work? The server even noted that some one had left water bottles on her doorstep, is it possible she's been getting supply drops from a friend and has been living like a hermit in her house for the last 10+ days?
Click to expand...
You know for a short time in my long life I was a process server, (not a fun job I found out) it's a game of cat n mouse sometimes with people trying to hide. It eventually plays out, hell they didn't even have to sign, we had people tip the mailman to go to the door with a package and once open, throw it in and say "you've been served"
 
  • Like
Reactions: not william stenchever, ChevroletBlackboard, ManateeHunter and 4 others
Love Soze said:
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccck these people.
View attachment 757686
Click to expand...

Holy shit, their first citation is literally PULL!!

Reading this, at first I thought they were going a more reasonable route. At first I thought they were building up to an argument that these accusations have been around forever (oldest accusation I can find in their sources is Tumblr in 2011), and thus the defendant's can't be blamed for believing and repeating an oft-repeated narrative.

But then we build to:

"24. Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiffs own acts or omissions proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiffs injuries.
25. Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff because Defendants' allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true."

Oh, so no, they are actually going with the argument that the accusations are true.

Also: "Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff consented to and/or published the allegedly defamatory statements by discussing them in public and on social media outlets."

I'm pretty sure the reason this exception exists is so that if you say "Bob, you're a rapist" to Bob's face and no one else, and Bob publishes your statement, then he can't go after you for defamation because no one would have heard your accusation if he hadn't spread it around. Pretty sure it wasn't intended to be used for "If I personally publish something slandering you and you acknowledge its existence then you can't sue me for slander", which is the approach they are taking.

Also: "Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff in that some or all of the alleged defamatory statements were meant as a parody or satire."

Huh... I wonder which ones they are specifically claiming here??

Also: "Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contracts because they are barred by the two-year statute of limitations."

Did I jump forward in time again?? Two years have passed since February 2019?? Or are they saying they began lobbying cons in 2017 or something??

Also: "Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff does not identify a valid contract that was the subject of any alleged interference."

OOF!! He pulled a Shane, in thinking the suit was about specific contract and not in general.

Also combined with the last one: "You didn't cite a specific instance of tortuous interference, but also the cited instance was more than two years ago so statute of limitations is in effect." Huh?? Is it too old, or unspecified?? How can it be too old and unspecified??

EDIT: Also: "Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff in that some or all of the alleged defamatory statements were non-literal hyperbole."

And that's how they're going to play it to try to avoid dealing with the "100+ women" statement.
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ChevroletBlackboard, theworstkindofeurofag, BlueSpark and 1 other person
Well, I guess this means Casey hasn't been fired, so we can check that one off. Is there a reason the responses were so...late? Apparently they can do that because of technicalities, but like someone else said, they're using all of their time outs now in the early phase. Way in the future, when Ty initiates Round 2, is it possible that the judge right now can tell the judge for then the circumstances surrounding this case? Or, God willing, they get the same judge?
 
FGO-Professor-P2PBTW said:
Well, I guess this means Casey hasn't been fired, so we can check that one off. Is there a reason the responses were so...late? Apparently they can do that because of technicalities, but like someone else said, they're using all of their time outs now in the early phase. Way in the future, when Ty initiates Round 2, is it possible that the judge right now can tell the judge for then the circumstances surrounding this case? Or, God willing, they get the same judge?
Click to expand...

It might not have been wait, it's just that the Texas system is slow and took a while to show up online.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Kosher Salt
Mashallah said:
25. Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff because Defendants' allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true."
Click to expand...

Vic: "They're not True."

Ty: "Ok. So they're not true. Can the defendants prove they're true?"

Superlawyer: "Objection! My clients are idiots!"

Judge: "... Overruled."

MoRon: "Uh, we don't have to prove anything, believe wammyns."
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Evil Bunny, Reigensveld, ChevroletBlackboard and 5 others
GRB86 said:
You know for a short time in my long life I was a process server, (not a fun job I found out) it's a game of cat n mouse sometimes with people trying to hide. It eventually plays out, hell they didn't even have to sign, we had people tip the mailman to go to the door with a package and once open, throw it in and say "you've been served"
Click to expand...
You have to be shady sometimes. I had fun doing it as a side job because im an asshole
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Goober_au, Reigensveld, Maraschino and 8 others
FGO-Professor-P2PBTW said:
Well, I guess this means Casey hasn't been fired, so we can check that one off. Is there a reason the responses were so...late? Apparently they can do that because of technicalities, but like someone else said, they're using all of their time outs now in the early phase. Way in the future, when Ty initiates Round 2, is it possible that the judge right now can tell the judge for then the circumstances surrounding this case? Or, God willing, they get the same judge?
Click to expand...
Round 2 would likely be the same suit, same judge, just with Iago, Igor, Renfield, and maybe a couple more added to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bootylicious Bootyhole
CheezzyMach said:
I fucking called it. This case is going to break her. Either her career dies or she becomes the mousiest most defanged bitch on the planet after this.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. She'll double down after this. Give her time. These types live in a perpetual hugbox. Vic and BHBH forcing the door open and tossing sand in the hugbox is going to drive her absolutely bugfuck nuts once she has time to calm down, get emotionally validated by her cunty mean-girl friends on twitter and IRL, and she'll decide that it was all the fault of the patriarchy for daring to even give Vic a chance to speak to a lawyer in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evil Bunny, theworstkindofeurofag, Zero Day Defense and 2 others
(Puts on tin foil hat) Maybe this isn't the only time Rial has tried stuff on Vic which is why stuff falling out of the stature of limitations were even mentioned. Who knows as the is LOLsuit 2.0 (I thought Marzgurl was going to be the one, but it was Toye all along. Oh how I fool I've been for underestimating Soye's exceptionalism)
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Winner
Reactions: ConSluttant, Zero Day Defense and Bush did USS Maine
One of their defenses is that everyone had to know they were full of shit, therefore it can't be defamation.

757737


No, seriously. That's their defense.

"Your honor, clearly everyone knows we were full of shit and just spouting off lies and other bullshit to try and hurt Vic's career. Therefore it's not defamation, it's just being a spitefuck little dickwad, and that's not illegal!"
 
  • DRINK!
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Evil Bunny, Reigensveld, Rossacciu and 12 others
I almost want to say that super lawyer didn't even write this response, it was just Soye with a little editing from Liar. Unfortunately, after the Maddox case, I really do believe we are looking at the ascended form of Landau here. I love it.

EDIT: Man, if the response is this bad...just wait for the interrogatories.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Evil Bunny, Reigensveld, ChevroletBlackboard and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back