TCPA Hearing 9/6/19 - Marchi ran from the Law, TI crumbles, conspiracy still on the table, and collective autism from all sides.

Nuke twitter?

  • Yes

    Votes: 109 19.2%

  • No

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Look at those faggot ass clothes! Faggot! Faggot, fag! Fuckin fag, my son's a fag!

    Votes: 323 57.0%

  • Apply the sacred ointment!

    Votes: 132 23.3%
  • Total voters
    567
DuckzillA said:
It's interesting they got vic as a limited person public figure even though he hasn't been vocal about this. Very interesting ruling but this is what you get when a judge isn't acclamated to the genre that is brought forth in the court. Seems rather half hazard.
Click to expand...

The human element in all of this.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, CuntBusterMan55, ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ and 1 other person
1567787963727.png

"Oh god what have I done?"
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Slimy Time, P5Fever, Chudbacca and 11 others
DuckzillA said:
Marchi was probably the hardest to actually succeed in this. Sad to see that ty needed to show the full context of tweets in order to get this nailed down. Learning lesson for ty and his team.
Click to expand...

Vic shouldn't need to show the full context of tweets - at the TCPA stage, the non-moving party (that's Vic) should be given the benefit of the doubt on any controversy over how evidence is interpreted.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: P5Fever, Kosher Salt, Rondo Richter Belmont and 8 others
Power Word: YEET said:
Vic shouldn't need to show the full context of tweets - at the TCPA stage, the non-moving party (that's Vic) should be given the benefit of the doubt on any controversy over how evidence is interpreted.
Click to expand...
Seems like chupp wanted context since marchi never said vic name. So, we are going back to the human element and how chupp thinks, which isn't how these lawyers are interpretating the law as written.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, TelBranora and 4 others
Judge Chupp more like Judge Chump.

If anything we need to take this as a reminder that despite our stimulating and well reasoned commentary, most of us have no fucking clue what we’re talking about, and none of us can predict the fucking future.
 
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Agree
Reactions: P5Fever, AnotherPleb, damian and 6 others
So apparently Chupp agrees that for the purposes of this case, Vic is being considered a limited purpose public figure. This may--and I stress may--give Ron an out with regards to actual malice. That being said, the strongest case at that point will against Monica, with FUNimation possibly being able to get away by saying, "We believed her and Jamie. If Monica lied to us, we can't be held responsible for that." The last thing Monica should want is for this to go to trial at all, because if she loses, she foots the entire bill. The other question then becomes, because Ron and Monica have filed joint statements and filings, how does the judge determine reasonable attorneys fees in that matter?

Keep in mind this is all appealable. The big thing to consider is that even though Chupp is not allowing the second amendedmotion from Ty, the Slatosch texts were, if memory serves, already brought up in the deposition with Ron, so whether or not Slatosch's affidavit is allowed or not is immaterial: it helps establish TI on Ron's part in particular, and that is a separate even from the defamation claim. What's more, it seems this is being treated more as an evidentiary hearing, when the TCPA states that this is not the case. That, in and of itself, is probably the most appealable portion of this entire thing, as a TCPA hearing is for the plaintiff to show that they can make a prima facie case against all the defendants, which most certainly Ty can when it comes to Monica, Ron, and FUNimation at the very least.

Marchi was probably dropped quickly by Chupp because there's very little evidence against her and he could make that. I expect on the others he'll take his time to formulate his decisions because there is a lot more to go on.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, NotaLolyer, Catgirls are Love and 15 others
Mister Y said:
Even so. I don't think anyone from the audience would see it unless it was a Joker smile.
Lawyers are usually in serious mode in front of a judge, I don't think anyone is grinning, at least not externally.

EDIT: Also, that's only the point I personnally stoped following his twitter, but other people are reporting other inconsistencies in his tweets.
There is even a powerleveler from here who said he's full of shit.
Click to expand...
The smiling is still some weak shit to hang on if there's better things to call him out on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Rondo Richter Belmont and Kill all whales
DuckzillA said:
Seems like chupp wanted context since marchi never said vic name. So, we are going back to the human element and how chupp thinks, which isn't how these lawyers are interpretating the law as written.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that's really not bad news. If Marcie can be returned to court in light of the new circumstances (I don't know, I hope so, because it was written here).
One less appeal. One less competent lawyer.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Magnum Tenebrosum and Kill all whales
Power Word: YEET said:
Vic shouldn't need to show the full context of tweets - at the TCPA stage, the non-moving party (that's Vic) should be given the benefit of the doubt on any controversy over how evidence is interpreted.
Click to expand...
DuckzillA said:
Seems like chupp wanted context since marchi never said vic name. So, we are going back to the human element and how chupp thinks, which isn't how these lawyers are interpretating the law as written.
Click to expand...

That's the purpose of the TCPA and this hearing..........to throw out what has the appearance of a frivolous lawsuit. Without the twitter thread and context, it could be argued (and probably was) that marchi was just dragged in with no proof thus making her inclusion frivolous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back