T. Greg Doucette / Thomas Gregory Doucette / greg_doucette / TGDLaw / fsckemall / lawdevnull / TDot - Super Lawyer, Failed Politician, Captain of The Threadnought, Drowning in Debt

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
AnOminous said:
Incidentally this is far from the only case where someone called someone a pedophile in a case where things they said were found defamatory per se, it's just the one that explicitly says it in those exact words. Usually they just conclude it in passing without even bothering to state it. It's that obvious.

You have to have a very special kind of shit for brains to say something that utterly stupid, that calling you something people have been literally killed for being, is not defamatory and does not tend to cast one into disrepute.

This man is a defective and should kill himself.
Click to expand...

I know I'm late and gay here but... In the Brett Kimberlin lawsuit, calling Kimberlin a pedo was found NOT to be defamatory because 1. Kimberlin fucked his now wife when she was 15 or 16 and made moves on her 12 year old cousin AND 2. Kimberlin was defamation proof because someone who is known as a domestic terrorist and the Speedway Bomber is definitely beyond the pale.

Somehow I don't think Moronica et al are going to be able to prove that Vic had sex with an underage girl or that he is defamation proof. Ergo it's defamation per se bitchez. Reap the whirlwind!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlehFail.451, Helium, Botchy Galoop and 1 other person
Kyyyyyyyle said:
I know I'm late and gay here but... In the Brett Kimberlin lawsuit, calling Kimberlin a pedo was found NOT to be defamatory because 1. Kimberlin fucked his now wife when she was 15 or 16 and made moves on her 12 year old cousin AND 2. Kimberlin was defamation proof because someone who is known as a domestic terrorist and the Speedway Bomber is definitely beyond the pale.

Somehow I don't think Moronica et al are going to be able to prove that Vic had sex with an underage girl or that he is defamation proof. Ergo it's defamation per se bitchez. Reap the whirlwind!
Click to expand...

I think the concept of "defamation proof" is something that's still very well a legal discussion, but I take issue with making that kind of judgment call when the point of actionable defamation is that the false statements caused harm to plaintiff. Call it semantics, but the term by virtue of itself rubs me the wrong way.

It's not that he was "judgment proof"-- it's that the alleged defamation was actually true.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: TLS, theworstkindofeurofag and BimWitted
15,000 tweets in the Threadnought and Popehat is just now finding this out.

1566657234607.png

web.archive.org

HerebyOrderedHat on Twitter

“@greg_doucette wait. Isn't the Vic Saga in Texas STATE Court? Yes?”
web.archive.org web.archive.org
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Slimy Time, TLS, A_throwaway_name62919 and 12 others
Zero Day Defense said:
I think the concept of "defamation proof" is something that's still very well a legal discussion, but I take issue with making that kind of judgment call when the point of actionable defamation is that the false statements caused harm to plaintiff. Call it semantics, but the term by virtue of itself rubs me the wrong way.

It's not that he was "judgment proof"-- it's that the alleged defamation was actually true.
Click to expand...

There is no way Vic is defamation proof. He is not convicted of anything. You have to be a really really bad person - like Kimberlin - to be defamation proof. He is also not judgement proof because he has assets that you could go after if you were awarded something against him. I think you are confusing judgement proof with being defamation proof. One has to deal with money the other with reputation.

Edit : to be more clear, being defamation proof means that there is nothing someone could say about you that would lower your opinion on the public's eyes anymore than you already by virtue of who you are. Vic, until January of this year, was a well regarded person in society. Everything that has been said about him has lowered people's opinion of him, I.e. Defamation A convicted murderer, on the other hand, does not have a good reputation by virtue of being convicted. That person is defamation proof.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Exterminatus, GenericReviewerDraco, Kosher Salt and 2 others
Kyyyyyyyle said:
There is no way Vic is defamation proof. He is not convicted of anything. You have to be a really really bad person - like Kimberlin - to be defamation proof. He is also not judgement proof because he has assets that you could go after if you were awarded something against him. I think you are confusing judgement proof with being defamation proof. One has to deal with money the other with reputation.

Edit : to be more clear, being defamation proof means that there is nothing someone could say about you that would lower your opinion on the public's eyes anymore than you already by virtue of who you are. Vic, until January of this year, was a well regarded person in society. Everything that has been said about him has lowered people's opinion of him, I.e. Defamation A convicted murderer, on the other hand, does not have a good reputation by virtue of being convicted. That person is defamation proof.
Click to expand...
BuT mUh SeXuAl HarRaSsMeNt ClAiMs
BuT mUh TuMbLr FaNfIc
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That and GenericReviewerDraco
JosephTX said:
I doxxed him, he's on the Colorado Bar, but he's not in private practice, he's in-house in the fraud department of some financial firm.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that and stand by my statement that he is not a lawyer. He may be an attorney.

Kyyyyyyyle said:
There is no way Vic is defamation proof. He is not convicted of anything.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant. The fact that Vic can show up and get crowds at any imaginable event, including swanky locations like the Marriott at Times Square, shows that he has a good reputation even after it has been damaged.

The vile, loathsome scum who have tried to destroy him have failed. They have, however, caused him provable damage.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor D, ConSluttant, Botchy Galoop and 5 others
AnOminous said:
I'm aware of that and stand by my statement that he is not a lawyer. He may be an attorney.



It's irrelevant. The fact that Vic can show up and get crowds at any imaginable event, including swanky locations like the Marriott at Times Square, shows that he has a good reputation even after it has been damaged.

The vile, loathsome scum who have tried to destroy him have failed. They have, however, caused him provable damage.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a lawyer and an attorney? I thought they were just synonyms
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: indianshedevil
OneHandClapping said:
Other way around. He is bar licensed (thus is an attorney) but he doesn't practice (thus he's not a lawyer).
Click to expand...
Damn it, and I thought I was starting to understand the American legal system a bit.
 
Malfunctioning Alcoholic said:
Damn it, and I thought I was starting to understand the American legal system a bit.
Click to expand...

It might be easier to think of it as having a certification. A person could have, say, a CPA license but not work as an auditor; or have teaching credentials but not work as an instructor. Attorney is just a term for having the qualification; it could mean you use it in your occupation, but not necessarily.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Bender
Kyyyyyyyle said:
There is no way Vic is defamation proof. He is not convicted of anything. You have to be a really really bad person - like Kimberlin - to be defamation proof. He is also not judgement proof because he has assets that you could go after if you were awarded something against him. I think you are confusing judgement proof with being defamation proof. One has to deal with money the other with reputation.

Edit : to be more clear, being defamation proof means that there is nothing someone could say about you that would lower your opinion on the public's eyes anymore than you already by virtue of who you are. Vic, until January of this year, was a well regarded person in society. Everything that has been said about him has lowered people's opinion of him, I.e. Defamation A convicted murderer, on the other hand, does not have a good reputation by virtue of being convicted. That person is defamation proof.
Click to expand...
There's even more nuance to it. If it's a subject in which someones reputation isn't bad yet, then it can be defamation even if another subject would have him defamation proof. As an example, in theory, a serial murderer and rapist who raped half his victims before killing them would be libel proof if someone said he raped all his victims. However, if someone claimed he also targeted children but in reality he never hurt a kid, then he would still have a case for defamation (as people would see a child murderer/rapist as significantly worse than a normal murderer/rapist, and so he would still have damage to his abysmal reputation).

It would obviously be a hard case to argue, but in theory it should work like that. On the other hand, actual libel proof people are so rare, there's hardly any chance to get case law on it, and even if it happens like that a judge might just say that they just won't bother with it as the damage is negligible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant
Soviras said:
There's even more nuance to it. If it's a subject in which someones reputation isn't bad yet, then it can be defamation even if another subject would have him defamation proof. As an example, in theory, a serial murderer and rapist who raped half his victims before killing them would be libel proof if someone said he raped all his victims. However, if someone claimed he also targeted children but in reality he never hurt a kid, then he would still have a case for defamation (as people would see a child murderer/rapist as significantly worse than a normal murderer/rapist, and so he would still have damage to his abysmal reputation).

It would obviously be a hard case to argue, but in theory it should work like that. On the other hand, actual libel proof people are so rare, there's hardly any chance to get case law on it, and even if it happens like that a judge might just say that they just won't bother with it as the damage is negligible.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the "damage" part is the key issue in defining someone as libel-proof. Essentially, being libel-proof is to say that it's literally impossible to damage you on this subject since you've already been damaged enough. In Vic's case, this is obviously untrue, since he's had very real damage to his reputation and to his earning potential; even if rumors and innuendo had existed regarding this subject prior to the actions of the defendants, their dissemination of the rumors and subsequent actions led to damages beyond what had existed before.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zero Day Defense, ConSluttant, Botchy Galoop and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back