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

Did this bitch really just say the elevator she was in was full of people

Im pretty sure she said she was alone with vic and another women in an elevator, as vic tried to escort this drunk women away

1564500309729.png


This was her story on pull. She says they were alone, idk if she referenced the fullness of the elevator unless it was elsewhere.
 
im a big dumbass, what does this mean?
Herr Fuhrer is attempting to cite a statute that protects platforms and users from the content that a third party posts.

Example-

You start a thread on a platform we'll call Twatter and some jackass comes in to spread illegal images of some kind. For this we'll just say pictures of cheese pizza are illegal.

Twatter does its due diligence and cleans it up the pizza spill. They are protected, because it was a user breaking their ToS. Because it was your thread, or your timeline, or whatever home page is available to that platform, you are also protected since you were not the one to put the illicit imagery up, even if those images were posted all over your timeline because that first person was slinging mentions with you explicitly in mind.
 
View attachment 866859

This was her story on pull. She says they were alone, idk if she referenced the fullness of the elevator unless it was elsewhere.

It’s worth noting she claims Vic was drunk. While we have Vic’s testimony under oath, and observed corroborating actions, that he has never been drunk. He doesn't Drink. Remember the whole $100 bounty he offered for footage of him drunk? He offered it because he knew there was none out there. I don’t know if it is part of his faith or if he simply elects not to drink. It’s not uncommon.
 
It’s worth noting she claims Vic was drunk. While we have Vic’s testimony under oath, and observed corroborating actions, that he has never been drunk. He doesn't Drink. Remember the whole $100 bounty he offered for footage of him drunk? He offered it because he knew there was none out there. I don’t know if it is part of his faith or if he simply elects not to drink. It’s not uncommon.

I think he's mentioned drinking wine, but he's testified under oath to never being drunk.
 
It's a weird situation actually... He might not be wrong. The term "user" hasn't been defined, and it hasn't been established what the scope should be (unless I missed something in the last few months). There's case law for both a literal interpretation, which would protect any retweet, as well as a restricted interpretation which holds them liable for retweeting. It's going to be up to Judge Chupp to decide for this case. I'm sure he will interpret it to the advantage of the defendants, after all it's not like they have been making his life hard or anything.

I think the more important thing here is whether or not they're "information content providers" in the context of retweets. I think it's fairly obvious that their own statements make them information content providers, in the context of their own statements. It's less obvious whether a retweet is a "creation or development of information," which is an element of being an information content provider. That would be up to case law to actually figure out, which is far beyond me. I would lean heavily toward it still being a "creation or development of information" though, because the spirit of the law is to protect both platforms and users on the platforms from being punished for actions over which they had no control.
 
It’s worth noting she claims Vic was drunk. While we have Vic’s testimony under oath, and observed corroborating actions, that he has never been drunk. He doesn't Drink. Remember the whole $100 bounty he offered for footage of him drunk? He offered it because he knew there was none out there. I don’t know if it is part of his faith or if he simply elects not to drink. It’s not uncommon.
It's probably why his skin doesn't look like a used dental dam, unlike the defense, their council, or...... Sorry Rackets.....
 
It’s worth noting she claims Vic was drunk. While we have Vic’s testimony under oath, and observed corroborating actions, that he has never been drunk. He doesn't Drink. Remember the whole $100 bounty he offered for footage of him drunk? He offered it because he knew there was none out there. I don’t know if it is part of his faith or if he simply elects not to drink. It’s not uncommon.
at some point, the story will evolve to "while he was drunkenly assaulting her, i saw him slip something into her drink"
 
It’s worth noting she claims Vic was drunk. While we have Vic’s testimony under oath, and observed corroborating actions, that he has never been drunk. He doesn't Drink. Remember the whole $100 bounty he offered for footage of him drunk? He offered it because he knew there was none out there. I don’t know if it is part of his faith or if he simply elects not to drink. It’s not uncommon.

Probably just elects not to. I'm the same way. Though for personal non religious reasons.

I imagine shes just never seen a dude all over her before, so to her he must be actually drunk, not just lust-drunk.

Wouldn't it be funny if that person she saw was Vic's fiance?
 
Ironically Youtube if you know where to look.

You can watch the entirety of Legend of the Galactic Heroes there incidentally. Well worth the time.



One of the best anime shows ever produced with Monster coming a close second. The sheer amount of world building and galaxy spanning characters would force anyone at Marvel comics into a mental tailspin. Remember when this came out there was NO wikipedia/wiki like structure. LOTGH forced you to remember who the second admiral of the fourth fleet that was somehow now in defense of a damn flotilla attacking the moon base was. The show does a good job of keeping track of everyone but there are times that I went "Who the Fuck is this guy?"

11/10 will watch again when I have a month of my life to dedicate to binging it.
 
I can't believe arguments like this are still floating around this thread. BHBH has the funds to reply to absurd shit for days and weeks and years. The people who don't have the money are the defendants, who are potentially going to have to pay for their lawyers to defend this in front of a judge.

This is a completely absurd argument that keeps popping up. It's false in and of itself. This "tactic" produces the exact opposite of what people are claiming it does: it ends up spending money from people that DON'T have the money to spend.

This filings are NOT intended to drain Vic's warchest, they don't do anything noticeable to that effect, nor does it matter to any of the parties involved in this lawsuit since Vic's funds (which are public) can be used to sue them two or three times over, shenanigans or not. No one on the defendants side is thinking of this as a drainage tactic because 1. it doesn't work and 2. it drains their funds, not Vic's. Maybe it drains a little more of Vic's than theirs, but Vic is not hurting for money, they are. It hurts them that much more.

Please stop making this argument, it's entirely nonsensical and extremely short-sighted to even say it.

IMO, stupid and petty people will continue to be stupid and petty.

Whether BHBH is actually billing against the GFM/IOLTA or will take a contingency upon winning or whether Moron can actually drain the GFM is irrelevant.

They’re severely ass blasted so I won’t project normal attorney-client behavior onto them.

They’ve been engaged in stupid and petty gamesmanship since the beginning and are dumb enough to think law twitter is right that they can run up the bills, win on the TCPA, and get their hands on the GFM somehow.

If Lemongruppenfuhrer has deadbeat clients and isn’t getting paid why not just drop a ream full of frivolous bullshit pasted together by interns and jr associates on Ty just out of spite?

I would normally agree with you and err on the side of law firms wanting to get paid. We just don’t know the extent that Lemoine and Erick may be motivated more by the constant public ridicule at this point vs not getting paid by their broke clients.

Hoes mad so I expect them to pull every petty chickenshit move possible including continuing to aim tangential targets like Nick and the GFM. Seemingly regardless of cost.
 
there's not much that this affirmative defense would actually do though. 90% of the defamation aren't because of retweets but because of proper tweets and statements they made.

I believe the TDMA letter and some of the deposition went into retweets and likes. I suspect those are protected, but also any damage from those is incidental anyway. The real damage is from statements made by the Soye Boye and Monica on their own initiative in their own words concerning matters they claimed personal knowledge about.

The cuck in particular claimed never to have read anything but a single PULL thread, but believed every single thing in it, so his source for hundreds of rapes includes astral projection rapes, as mentioned in the PULL thread. I don't think he ever specifically personally accused Vic of astrally raping anyone, though, even though he believes it 100%.
 
I seriously think that cunt kara was touchy feely with Vic because she thought he was gay and then felt "violated" when she found out he wasn't, hence her bullshit.

Like women that grab on men they think are gay at parties and feel like the guys pretended to be gay to get some action.
How full of herself does a broad have to be to believe that a man would pretend to be gay just so that she could touch him, what the fuck?
 
Ironically Youtube if you know where to look.

You can watch the entirety of Legend of the Galactic Heroes there incidentally. Well worth the time.


You're either a hero for getting me back into this, or a monster for the same reason. I'll let you know in a month.

How full of herself does a broad have to be to believe that a man would pretend to be gay just so that she could touch him, what the fuck?

My dear, I have some bad news you need to hear about women...
 
Last edited:
I can't believe arguments like this are still floating around this thread. BHBH has the funds to reply to absurd shit for days and weeks and years. The people who don't have the money are the defendants, who are potentially going to have to pay for their lawyers to defend this in front of a judge.

I'm pretty sure they are in fact trying to do that. The fact that it makes little to no strategic sense just makes it more or less consistent with the rest of their strategy, which also makes no sense. That or they're just trying to bilk their clients out of as much money as possible.
 
Ron doesn't remember any conversations about Vic or any articles covering the story. All he remembers is PULL, so who's words is he repeating? This is of course a rhetorical question.

PULL's. PULL would be an interactive website -- a forum -- who provided the information.

Basically, this is the legal equivalent of "NOT IT."

I'm pretty sure they are in fact trying to do that. The fact that it makes little to no strategic sense just makes it more or less consistent with the rest of their strategy, which also makes no sense. That or they're just trying to bilk their clients out of as much money as possible.

... But they aren't paying them. Unless the Lawyers are hoping to run up a huge bill and then go after them later on...
 
Late and Bi because I've been dealing with sickness.

Saw someone on another site mention Casey trying to 'bail' from the case. Can someone give me the rundown on what they mean by that?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Shady Attorney
Back