- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
She lost the case on a motion to dismiss largely due to her twitter sperging and she twitter spergs before the fee motion is resolved. The phrase "stuck on stupid" comes to mind.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
She lost because it was clearly fair use to the point it was frivolous to bring it at all. Her sperging didn't make it fair use. What it did was make her bad faith and deliberate abuse of the process obvious.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2015
And, her continued sperging since makes it clear she didn't and still doesn't have any concept of fair use in the first place and probably fired her original attorneys for trying to point this out instead of just going after Benjamin on pure animus.
Because she still clearly thinks everyone around here didn't do enough, not that they were capped, by law, from doing anything under the fair use doctrine. She's whining that YouTube didn't just violate fair use to keep her stuff from being used in a way she doesn't like, and that's not the way it works.
Her Twitter sperging was just used as proof that the insistence on ignoring the FU (heh) doctrine was motivated by a desire not to protect her work, but a desire to punish Benjamin for touching it because he's from one of her identity tribe's forbidden groups, and the tweets contained proof that she intended to use copyright as a means of suppression and coercion to get money from him, and if successful, would leverage it again against others they don't like.
They weren't material to the facts of the case, but WERE for Benjamin's request for repayment of his legal fees because they proved she brought the case in bad faith, and had already been warned it was in bad faith and not likely to prevail.
But in true devotee to history "right side" of history fashion, Akilah decided to be impervious to logic and unwilling to argue points of fact that haven't' already been fixed in her favor. And when put in a place like a court where there's no way around it, they just suffer human meltdown and screeched "REEEEE WHYPIPO! GIMMIE WHAT I WANT OR YOU ALL RACISST!"
And she got what she fucking deserved.
Because she still clearly thinks everyone around here didn't do enough, not that they were capped, by law, from doing anything under the fair use doctrine. She's whining that YouTube didn't just violate fair use to keep her stuff from being used in a way she doesn't like, and that's not the way it works.
Her Twitter sperging was just used as proof that the insistence on ignoring the FU (heh) doctrine was motivated by a desire not to protect her work, but a desire to punish Benjamin for touching it because he's from one of her identity tribe's forbidden groups, and the tweets contained proof that she intended to use copyright as a means of suppression and coercion to get money from him, and if successful, would leverage it again against others they don't like.
They weren't material to the facts of the case, but WERE for Benjamin's request for repayment of his legal fees because they proved she brought the case in bad faith, and had already been warned it was in bad faith and not likely to prevail.
But in true devotee to history "right side" of history fashion, Akilah decided to be impervious to logic and unwilling to argue points of fact that haven't' already been fixed in her favor. And when put in a place like a court where there's no way around it, they just suffer human meltdown and screeched "REEEEE WHYPIPO! GIMMIE WHAT I WANT OR YOU ALL RACISST!"
And she got what she fucking deserved.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
A federal court is not the streets of Minneapolis and you don't get what you want by just chimping out and making demands.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2015
You know that, and I know that.
But strong sassy black women who don't need no man? Specially white boys? like her?
They don't and never will.
They will forever believe they can just finger-snap their way to what they want in ALL situations.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
He had one really interesting point, in that the court has been slow to issue a ruling on costs (possibly due to Covid). Apparently lawyers writing to the Judge asking him to hurry up is bad.
However because Akilah wrote that retarded letter to YouTube, it allowed Sargon's lawyers to make another submission to the court, submitting the letter as evidence of her bad faith, so when the Judge actions the letter he may feel inclined to just make the judgement as well.
Actually I didn't realise how badly worded and confused the note was until he read it aloud.
Also a question for anybody with a knowledge of US civil law, if the judge references that note in his judgement, could it assist Sargon in a libel action?
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Its her actively defaming him, in the process of going after his income, and all but admitting she had a hand in attacking his patreon.
The answer is yes.
Addendum: As an aside, whether he COULD sue is a separate question from whether he SHOULD. I hold he'd easily win, but shouldn't bother due to it basically being an attempt to squeeze blood from a stone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2018
I like Leonard French. Also he does say at the end that he thinks Akilah is being an idiot and he thinks she's going too far.
I do love how Akilah just keeps showing how much of a fucking retard she is.
- Saying Sargoy has a '4chan community' lol dumb jogger apparently doesn't understand how 4chan even works. Let alone believing such an idiot like Sargon would be able to rally fucking 4chan.
- Still doesn't understand copyright law, despite having been involved in litigation for actual years. @AnOminous how much do you think her attorneys hate her at this point?
- Poles Twitter to get her answers.
- Is probably the person who most often thinks of Sargon and that's just sad.
Honestly, hope she keeps chimping out because man it's great entertainment.
edited because typo
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Depends whether they've been paid and how much. I don't think they'll be getting much from her in the future. Also depends on whether counsel themselves are on the hook for these sanctions, which Benjamin would probably want because he could more easily collect from them. After all, Hughes, as much of an idiot as she is, is not a copyright lawyer. Actual copyright counsel should have known they were advancing a frivolous argument unsupported by law.
In this case, Hughes' own statements support that she actually knew or acted with total disregard to the merits or lack thereof, but counsel can be presumed to have acted either with actual knowledge or by failing to perform their tasks as lawyers competently.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2018
Imagine flushing your legal career and all the money you spent on law school down the toilet for a woke jogger with an IQ like a kitchen sponge left to rot in the sun.
How bad could it be for her counsel if they are found to have been acting with such disregard? I'm not a lawyer so my understanding of the rules are at best, mildly above average pleb.
Edited because I forgot to put a sentence in like a sped.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's questionable. Part of her bad faith is firing her previous counsel, making it possibly confusing as to who is responsible for what. It's sometimes indicative of bad faith if you replace counsel but since any communications about that are privileged, it's hard to know why. Both filing a meritless legal action and continuing to pursue it when it was clearly meritless are sanctionable, but the latter might be less so. If you're dumped into a case in the middle you kind of have to muddle through with what you were given. There's a conflict between the obligation to represent a client effectively and the obligation not to advance meritless arguments.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Couldn't counsel also hide behind the argument that they repeatedly advised their client not to tale this course of action that she then did anyway? I dont recall anywhere in the MRPC that its unethical for a lawyer to represent a properly informed party who's nonetheless engaging in frivolous actions.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You're still prohibited from advancing meritless legal arguments. The fact you're doing it because you're being paid to do it isn't relevant. That an argument isn't likely to succeed doesn't make it objectively frivolous, but in this case, Benjamin's use was so clearly fair use that no lawyer could reasonably advance it.
You don't need to establish subjective bad faith for an award of prevailing defendant fees in a copyright action.
Another thing. During the DMCA notification/counter-notification process that went on before suit was filed, Benjamin, speaking on his own behalf in his counter-notification, explicitly raised his fair use claim and his basis for it. Neither Benjamin nor counsel could have been unaware of the fair use claim. They either failed to analyze it (as required by Lenz v. Universal) or did so and then willfully filed a frivolous complaint anyway.
Last edited:
DragoonSierra
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
DragoonSierra
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Who the fuck wants a restraining order when you could have a bunch of money instead? Are you nuts?
- Status