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

Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!

Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.

He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime :(

Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!

- law twitter xoxoxo


nikkirackets.jpeg
 
Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!

Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.

He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime :(

Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!

- law twitter xoxoxo

Which crime did he commit? With citation.

I know, I know :optimistic:
 
Was going to put in his thread but it needs to be seen here. Ron found Vic's yelling at homophobic Christian's video. I thought it was impossible but he made an attempt to spin this around
20201001_112637.jpg
"Research" right
20201001_112655.jpg
Well that was a nice attempt at therapy
20201001_112724.jpg
Well here's a bit of context you sad little man. Those people were harassing fans at a con and Vic wanted to step in and help.
20201001_112739.jpg
I mean its not like his religion is being used in a hateful manner something that he strives to tell not to do. Why would he ever be so angry?
20201001_113154.jpg

He then wants to talk that guy and tell him about Vic. So yeah he doesn't know
20201001_115957.jpg
 
Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!

Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.

He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime :(

Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!

- law twitter xoxoxo


View attachment 1634125
You faggots really have no life, do you?
 
Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!

Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.

He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime :(

Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!

- law twitter xoxoxo


View attachment 1634125
How'd those Lawtwitter predictions go with the Sandman case? Heard they fell flat on their face on that prediction.
 
Oh, of course friends! I am always happy to help.!

The specific crime is §38.123

Section (a) is met by clause 5, since he was acting on behalf of a separate legal entity, i.e. his TX media company.

In section (b) the clause is met by not being in good standing with the Texas State Bar, because of this:

Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 9.05.55 AM.png


There is more information in §81.102 too!

love, LT
 
Oh, of course friends! I am always happy to help.!

The specific crime is §38.123

Section (a) is met by clause 5, since he was acting on behalf of a separate legal entity, i.e. his TX media company.

In section (b) the clause is met by not being in good standing with the Texas State Bar, because of this:

View attachment 1634266

There is more information in §81.102 too!

love, LT
Wrong about 38.123 its right in section A.

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person:

And if I recall from the Amicus brief he said it was to no economic benefit sooo.....
 
Oh, of course friends! I am always happy to help.!

The specific crime is §38.123

Section (a) is met by clause 5, since he was acting on behalf of a separate legal entity, i.e. his TX media company.

In section (b) the clause is met by not being in good standing with the Texas State Bar, because of this:

View attachment 1634266

There is more information in §81.102 too!

love, LT

You have no comprehension. Good work, dummy.
 
Wrong about 38.123 its right in section A.

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person:

And if I recall from the Amicus brief he said it was to no economic benefit sooo.....
It could be argued that by filing this he intended to obtain superchats. Just saying “I don’t benefit from this” doesn’t mean someone else can’t argue that you did. This can be proven by looking at the general quantity of superchat donations he received before speaking of the brief, after speaking of it, and after it was filed as well as quantity of views/clicks on monetized videos on platforms.
 
Hello again, friends! I hope you all are well!!

Normally I try and share positive things, but today please be sure to extra kind to your friend Nick Rekieta and keep him in your prayers.

He's having an extra hard day today because he didn't read the rules and accidentally did a crime :(

Love and happiness to you all! Talk to you soon!

- law twitter xoxoxo


View attachment 1634125
Doesn't this confirm the fact that Nick can't be Vic's lawyer because he doesn't practice in Texas. Ultimately defeating the purpose of Casey and Lemongrab asking Vic if he was and trying to make up reasons why he was his lawyer
 
It could be argued that by filing this he intended to obtain superchats. Just saying “I don’t benefit from this” doesn’t mean someone else can’t argue that you did. This can be proven by looking at the general quantity of superchat donations he received before speaking of the brief, after speaking of it, and after it was filed as well as quantity of views/clicks on monetized videos on platforms.
I wouldn't hold my breath considering who would be doing the arguing. I mean Ty lost the case but in the following Dahlin Depo hearing the defense got KO'd and then the Fee hearing they got ROFL stomped again in arguments. And most likely the Supreme court is not going to give a shit either since it was an Amicus Brief.
 
Back