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

Felonious Monk said:
The only answer that makes sense is that even he thinks Ty's briefing on certain key issues was balls; bad enough that it warrants his interference.
Click to expand...
Another theory is that he wants in on the hearing. The KickVic side live tweeting from the courtroom allowed them to influence the narrative greatly which contributed to the ISWV meltdown week. I think being on the inside allows him to report on events in a way that otherwise may need to be briefed by Ty and Vic's team for their take. Last time Nick was in the crowd but went AFK for a week for personal reasons.
 
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hotfartz :), Allanon, Riku and 1 other person
MagicalHopStep said:
What’s going on with Nick?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Nick submitted an amicus brief that got rejected twice because he’s not a licensed attorney in Texas. It’s really a nothingburger since everyone (including Nick) thought it was pointless. But at least it showed Nick cared about Vic.

But the idiots at lawtwitter all thought Nick committed a serious crime when all he did was overlook a few details that made his brief ineligible. In other words, a minor human error. The worst this did to Nick was him getting laughed by these pinheads. Otherwise, it’s nothing.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: ConSluttant, Dean Pentel, What The Heck Is Going On and 9 others
MagicalHopStep said:
What’s going on with Nick?
Click to expand...
HighwayStar said:
Nothing. Nick submitted an amicus brief that got rejected twice because he’s not a licensed attorney in Texas. It’s really a nothingburger since everyone (including Nick) thought it was pointless. But at least it showed Nick cared about Vic.

But the idiots at lawtwitter all thought Nick committed a serious crime when all he did was overlook a few details that made his brief ineligible. In other words, a minor human error. The worst this did to Nick was him getting laughed by these pinheads. Otherwise, it’s nothing.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what @Oats12345 is referring to.
Go to Nick's normal non-WW thread, @MagicalHopStep.
It's drama between Drexel & Q.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: P5Fever, Allanon, Not A Bug and 1 other person
SpiralStars said:
Another theory is that he wants in on the hearing. The KickVic side live tweeting from the courtroom allowed them to influence the narrative greatly which contributed to the ISWV meltdown week. I think being on the inside allows him to report on events in a way that otherwise may need to be briefed by Ty and Vic's team for their take. Last time Nick was in the crowd but went AFK for a week for personal reasons.
Click to expand...

There aren't any upcoming hearings. There may be, after the appeal, depending on the outcome. And if there are, it'll probably be open to the public like all the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RebelRein1488x, Seraphic_Vishnal, Allanon and 3 others
OneHandClapping said:
I'm trying to understand this with only partial context, but wut?

"There was plenty of time for discovery before the suit". Huh? These conventions were actively hostile to Vic, and even if they weren't, I'm sure they'd be happy to admit "yes, we totally breached your contract." If Vic tried to pursue discovery, he would've been told to eat a dick. If Vic had demanded incriminating emails from Monica, Ron, Jamie, or Funimation, they'd be perfectly within their legal right to laugh in his face.

During the early stages of the lawsuit? Same thing. Without a court order, any discovery would be voluntary, and they could tell Vic to eat a dick. Vic did file motions to compel, but, surprise surprise, Chupp ignored those.

After the TCPA MOTD was filed? Discovery is frozen.
Click to expand...
Pre-suit discovery is a thing in Texas. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 allows attorneys to seek an order from a court compelling depositions before any suit is filed. Document preservations letters might also have helped, requiring any entities they intended to pursue discovery from to keep copies of relevant records or face sanctions for spoliating evidence. And while discovery is indeed frozen after TCPA is filed it may be lifted, and the standard for doing so isn't particularly high. Ty just didn't ask.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Ceral Funt, theworstkindofeurofag and Riku
Felonious Monk said:
And while discovery is indeed frozen after TCPA is filed it may be lifted, and the standard for doing so isn't particularly high. Ty just didn't ask.
Click to expand...

Discovery was entirely unnecessary for the purposes of the TCPA motion, despite Chupp's insistence on a post-discovery summary judgment standard, because of his apparent lack of understanding of the law, and his inability to read the filings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lone MacReady, anionfarflung, Rondo Richter Belmont and 3 others
AnOminous said:
Discovery was entirely unnecessary for the purposes of the TCPA motion, despite Chupp's insistence on a post-discovery summary judgment standard, because of his apparent lack of understanding of the law, and his inability to read the filings.
Click to expand...
You can dither all you like over whether Chupp applied the correct standard, at the end of the day when the question is "What contracts were breached and with whom" if the answer is "we haven't had time to conduct discovery on that" you deserve to get your ass kicked out of the courtroom. Ty could have done much, much more but he took a lazy, amateurish approach to the case.

The professional approach to a Texas defamation case is to conduct pre-trial discovery, plead only those claims you are sure will survive TCPA, then amend to add whatever else you find when full discovery gets conducted down the line. "I say it didn't happen, therefore my burden to prove falsity is met" is a weak argument that is not going to convince any judges. I entirely disagree that "discovery was unnecessary," and this case is a good illustration of why.
 
  • Informative
  • Disagree
  • Agree
Reactions: P5Fever, Ceral Funt, Xenomorphs Are Cute and 4 others
Felonious Monk said:
"I say it didn't happen, therefore my burden to prove falsity is met" is a weak argument that is not going to convince any judges. I entirely disagree that "discovery was unnecessary," and this case is a good illustration of why.
Click to expand...

Convincing judges is not something that needs to be done, the standard is whether a reasonable jury, faced with a disagreement of fact between two witnesses, could conceivably decide in favor of the plaintiff. In any event, just attempting to front-load expensive discovery into a defamation case prior to filing suit would be just as subject to a TCPA motion as not doing so, because why the fuck would it be possible to circumvent the TCPA by simply doing your discovery prior to filing suit?

You really think a mountain of pretrial discovery on uncooperative out of state non-parties, all of whom themselves could use the TCPA, would have been an effective or prudent use of money?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConSluttant, P5Fever, Hotfartz :) and 4 others
AnOminous said:
Convincing judges is not something that needs to be done, the standard is whether a reasonable jury, faced with a disagreement of fact between two witnesses, could conceivably decide in favor of the plaintiff. In any event, just attempting to front-load expensive discovery into a defamation case prior to filing suit would be just as subject to a TCPA motion as not doing so, because why the fuck would it be possible to circumvent the TCPA by simply doing your discovery prior to filing suit?

You really think a mountain of pretrial discovery on uncooperative out of state non-parties, all of whom themselves could use the TCPA, would have been an effective or prudent use of money?
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight: Your honest take is that you should go into these cases entirely blind? Just file whatever and see what sticks? That's your trial strategy?

You saw how that worked out, and you learned nothing.

Edited to add: Also, TCPA wouldn't apply to discovery requests against third parties pre-filing. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 564 S.W.3d 852, 858 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, pet. denied)
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, ConSluttant, P5Fever and 1 other person
Felonious Monk said:
So let me get this straight: Your honest take is that you should go into these cases entirely blind? Just file whatever and see what sticks? That's your trial strategy?

You saw how that worked out, and you learned nothing.

Edited to add: Also, TCPA wouldn't apply to discovery requests against third parties pre-filing. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 564 S.W.3d 852, 858 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, pet. denied)
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you if they didn't even send any evidence preservation letters, something I've never been able to determine if they did, but as the only tortious interference with existing contracts they explicitly alleged was KamehaCon, and they already had the contract, as well as the testimony of both parties to the contract, and text messages from one of the defendants explicitly interfering with the contract, why should they have engaged in multi-state pre-filing litigation? Do you think they had infinite amounts of money?

Felonious Monk said:
You saw how that worked out, and you learned nothing.
Click to expand...

That I didn't learn the incredibly bizarre lesson you seem to have think I should have does not mean I learned nothing.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: P5Fever, Allanon, Least Concern and 1 other person
AnOminous said:
I'd agree with you if they didn't even send any evidence preservation letters, something I've never been able to determine if they did, but as the only tortious interference with existing contracts they explicitly alleged was KamehaCon, and they already had the contract, as well as the testimony of both parties to the contract, and text messages from one of the defendants explicitly interfering with the contract, why should they have engaged in multi-state pre-filing litigation? Do you think they had infinite amounts of money?



That I didn't learn the incredibly bizarre lesson you seem to have think I should have does not mean I learned nothing
Click to expand...
Something that has always bothered me about the strategy in this case is the excessive focus on KamehaCon. Yes, I do think that is one of the parties they should have conducted more discovery on, but outside of that the damages there were so tiny. The cost of some extra security is not a blockbuster lawsuit. The much, much bigger claim was the prospective claim and the evidence was flatly non-existent.

As for cost: If Vic really thought this was a million dollar lawsuit, then yes, I expect him to pony up for real lawyers to do the hard work of securing pre-trial discovery. These suits are not unwinnable, despite what lawtwitter often says. They do require special handling and they are more expensive to bring as a consequence. He had a $200,000 warchest when this started. That would have been more than enough in my view to conduct a handful of brief, 2-3 hour depositions of key people.
 
  • Disagree
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, ConSluttant, P5Fever and 2 others
AnOminous said:
I'd agree with you if they didn't even send any evidence preservation letters, something I've never been able to determine if they did,
Click to expand...

1601871705942.png

 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, AStupidMonkey, Not A Bug and 8 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back