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

Mecharmadillo said:
Are there any consequences to filing late again? because a judge is BOUND to be pissed off from the same laywer being late to file twice.
Click to expand...
There is the consequence of royally pissing off the judge for lying to the court. The hearing on the depositions had ended with Casey (not under order but on record) agreeing to extending the TCPA deadline and not filing until after the depositions. Which, he would have to justify to the judge during the TCPA hearing why he had lied to the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That and Seraphic_Vishnal
PrinceofAllCucks said:
There is the consequence of royally pissing off the judge for lying to the court. The hearing on the depositions had ended with Casey (not under order but on record) agreeing to extending the TCPA deadline and not filing until after the depositions. Which, he would have to justify to the judge during the TCPA hearing why he had lied to the court.
Click to expand...
not just that but remember, until a jury comes in the ball is in the judge's court. he controls this game. he can straight up tell both sides to present their evidence and make a ruling. it certainly would break many, many precedents and the usual flow of a trial, but he can. not much stops him.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Leblanc, Army Burger and Sakana
BrandedEagle said:
not just that but remember, until a jury comes in the ball is in the judge's court. he controls this game. he can straight up tell both sides to present their evidence and make a ruling. it certainly would break many, many precedents and the usual flow of a trial, but he can. not much stops him.
Click to expand...

There's good reason to think that Ron could face summary judgement just from the information that's already out there, never mind what's in the deposition. There's no real dispute over the messages he sent and it's pretty obvious TI based on the law as written.

Also, Funimation responding doesn't preclude them from settling out of court later. They said they'd file after everyone else did, and everyone else filed.
 
I have found the statute(s) for libel in Texas (at least I think I have) which detail some of the minutae of what Funimation is doing in terms of their pleadings here.

Libel Law

Which states

A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.
Click to expand...

Part of it details how the Mitigation Act should be followed and states

]Sec. 73.055. REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. (a) A person may maintain an action for defamation only if:
(1) the person has made a timely and sufficient request for a correction, clarification, or retraction from the defendant; or
(2) the defendant has made a correction, clarification, or retraction.
Click to expand...

which Funimation claims that BHBH did not do correctly. I can't imagine that BHBH didn't remember to send Funimation the same thing they Ron so it's possible that they didn't need to ask Funimation for anything, because Funimation had already clarified the tweet (which falls under part 2) with this statement: "Edit: We do not condone any kind of harassment or threatening behavior being directed at anyone"

This is all, of course, dependent upon what they specifically think BHBH didn't do to comply with the mitigation act.

There is literally no language in these statutes about someone being "libel-proof" so I have literally no idea what they are referring to. I'm sure Nick knows.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Yuusha-sama and Harvey Danger
Doodle said:
There is literally no language in these statutes about someone being "libel-proof" so I have literally no idea what they are referring to. I'm sure Nick knows.
Click to expand...

From the little bit of research I did to figure out what the hell they were saying, it's an obscure doctrine saying the plaintiff's reputation is already so damaged that defamatory statements didn't negatively affect their reputation. There isn't any extensive case law on it to the point where some courts consider it legitimate while others don't.

EDIT: It's obscure enough that I couldn't find any TX rules regarding the doctrine. Whether the judge will think it's bullshit or legitimate, probably just up to how he feels that day. I might understand using this defense if Vic was going to a criminal trial for something like serial murder, but he just made a few whales cry over how much of a chad he is and how he'll never notice them.

Of course, If I'm wrong, I'll eat a shoe to repent.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius and Doodle
HTTP Error 404 said:
As mentioned before, they have to write every defense in this, because if they don't they can't use it later. Or did I misunderstand that?

As for the delay, they might have been conducting an internal investigation to see how fucked they are. Or might have had another trial keeping them busy.
Click to expand...


But that was my entire point.
Why on earth do they need an extension if they are going to file something so generic and simple? (well made generic and simple, but still so)
And what was Ty's interest at allowing them the extension?
 
penguinfag.png


archive.fo

Michael Fitz-Gibbon on Twitter: "Just your regular reminder that @vic…

archived 10 Jun 2019 18:01:02 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

Daily stupidity from PenguinFag
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius, Next Task, Fat Tub of Lard and 9 others
Sakana said:
From the little bit of research I did to figure out what the hell they were saying, it's an obscure doctrine saying the plaintiff's reputation is already so damaged that defamatory statements didn't negatively affect their reputation. There isn't any extensive case law on it to the point where some courts consider it legitimate while others don't.

EDIT: It's obscure enough that I couldn't find any TX rules regarding the doctrine. Whether the judge will think it's bullshit or legitimate, probably just up to how he feels that day.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find anything in the statutes about that either (that someone's reputation was already so badly damaged that it didn't matter). One could, I suppose, make that argument but it seems like it is trying to torture in a spirit-of-the-law type interpretation of what it means to be libeled rather than any explicit wording (Texas law is notoriously letter-of-the-law, so we'll see if it works out for them) .

I did find one statute from Chapter 52 on Miscellaneous Restirictions (alongside a statute about the appropriate length of a hoe) dealing with blacklisting that specifies:

(d) This section may not be held to prohibit a corporation, company, or individual from giving, on application from a discharged employee or a person desiring to employ the employee, a written truthful statement of the reason for the discharge. The written statement may not be used as the cause for a civil or criminal action for libel against the person who furnishes the statement.
Click to expand...

Which I doubt they are referring to. I don't know we'll see what Racketts or Ty thinks.

Edit: Another similarly worded Statute

Art. 5206. STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF DISCHARGE. Any written statement of cause of discharge, if true, when made by such agent, company or corporation, shall never be used as the cause for an action for libel either civil or criminal, against the agent, company or corporation so furnishing same.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, Botchy Galoop, Yuusha-sama and 2 others
  • Feels
  • DRINK!
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Botchy Galoop and Questioning_Huggers
Sakana said:
So I read through Funi's response. IANAL, but some of the affirmative defenses have me scratching my head and wanting to pull my hair out.

View attachment 794199

So Ty talking about the already public statements, they're not defamatory anymore? Nick isn't an agent of Vic (or is he since he's in charge of the GFM???), so I don't get the point of this statement.

View attachment 794201

You mean all 5 people sitting in a dark corner of the internet and hissing at Vic from a distance while he was still being invited to dozens of cons a year and having his panels and signing lines at capacity before shit hit the fan?

View attachment 794202

"Actual malice." Judge hasn't ruled if he's a public figure or not, cucklords.

View attachment 794204

No. Just no.

View attachment 794209

Libel-proof? You mean to tell us that Vic's reputation was already SO BAD that he couldn't be defamed in any way that would further hurt his reputation and business prospects? This one has me doing exceptional mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...

Stop reading to much into this. These are all broad defenses against defamation, etc in Texas. This is what a good response to this case looks like. These are simply arguments that the defense might make. And all are based on Texas law and procedures. Many of the more absurd seeming ones are mainly pro forma.

It’s actually more shocking that the Super Lawyer didn’t leave open a few of these option.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Maraschino, Not A Bug, repentance and 7 others
Army Burger said:
>Implying he had relevancy had one point
Click to expand...

No joke. This guy has over 120 YouTube videos over the course of four years and has only 200 or so subscribers to show for it. I listened to one of his reviews to figure out what is wrong with him and it's clear he's going for this Linkara-like delivery but lacks any testosterone whatsoever to give his voice any bass, so he ends up sounding like an annoying lispy faggot. Not to hard to figure out why he's trying so hard to get in with the KickVic crowd for an audience of literally anyone to watch his shitty videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back