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.
Random Internet Person said:
Except, aren't the VAs and the main part of KV going so hard that you could nail them for either one?
Click to expand...
It's not unlawful to have malice for someone as long as you don't actually do anything. I could hate your guts, but as long as I didn't try to harm you, I've done nothing wrong.

For actual malice, you could make cases for them, sure.

Monica says Vic attacked her in the hotel room. Vic says he didn't. At TCPA, Vic's version of events is presumed true, which means Monica's version is false. Since only Monica and Vic witnessed that event (or non-event), that would necessarily mean Monica knew she was lying, thus actual malice. If it gets to trial, and the jury believes that Monica's version of the story did not happen, again, it would necessarily lead to the conclusion that Monica knowingly lied.

Same with Jamie's story. Did Vic batter her in the manner she describes? Jamie says it happened. Vic said it didn't. If the jury believes that Vic did not attack Jamie, it would lead to the conclusion that Jamie knowingly lied, because she spread a story about an event that did not happen.

Ron and Funimation are little murkier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, Drowningman and LawTwitter is Dumb
Mister Y2 said:
Except Nick says it because that what the Court of Appeal pretty much said in Watkins vs Miller.
Can't point where it was exactly (and I recall thinking that Nick was simplifying that point when watching his analysis), but the COA did say somewhere in its ruling that the woman saying she believed what she claimed to be true wasn't enough to refute malice was at play there. Basically, the court aknowledged that you can think you're telling the truth, and yet still be using it to maliciously try to harm someone's reputation.
Click to expand...
Well, even the 2DCA cited specifically to St. Amant, although to different language, specifically:

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher’s allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports. Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596 (quoting St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732, 88 S. Ct. at 1326) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).
Click to expand...

This does not contradict the general holding that actual malice requires actual doubt about the truth or falsity of the statements made, just that mere testimony to the contrary is not enough to defeat a finding that the defendant did, in fact, act with that state of mind. It's saying specifically that evidence of that state of mind of reckless disregard can be inferred from circumstances, sufficient to defeat the defendant's self-serving claims of good faith.

Park is correct that SCOTUS's current formulation is a subjective good faith standard, rather than an objective reasonable person standard.

So a jury could infer from the fact that Ron Toye claims he personally knew of literally hundreds of rape victims of Mignogna, but can't name a single one, that he is deliberately lying, not acting in good faith.
OneHandClapping said:
It's not unlawful to have malice for someone as long as you don't actually do anything. I could hate your guts, but as long as I didn't try to harm you, I've done nothing wrong.

For actual malice, you could make cases for them, sure.
Click to expand...
"Actual malice" doesn't mean what it means in normal English. You could be indifferent to or even like the plaintiff. All it means is making false statements with the actual knowledge of or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. And "reckless disregard" also doesn't mean what it means in normal English.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant, Kosher Salt, Drowningman and 2 others
Saw this while going through tweets
1616551616878.png

 
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, albert chan, Drowningman and 1 other person
Doucette is still using Twitch? LOL!

Also, social blade update:

T. Greg Doucette's Twitter Stats Summary Profile (Social Blade Twitter Statistics)

T. Greg Doucette Twitter Statistics and Summary Page. Discover daily Twitter statistics, T. Greg Doucette ranking charts, and more! Provided by SocialBlade.com
socialblade.com socialblade.com
The archives won't work for the following:
 
  • Informative
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, albert chan, Drowningman and 2 others
T. Cat tried to suicide itself yesterday in the bathroom and bled all over the house. The cleanup crew divided the work into hard and soft surfaces. T. Greg took the soft surfaces because, "I've got a lot more experience cleaning up pet fluids from carpeting. 😑"

"Cats occasionally need to be yeeted into..." - T. Greg

As luck would have it, it's Philanthropy Friday! (and also his 40th birthday). Send your donations of $3.26 $40 to his Venmo, CashApp or PayPal please. The money will go toward the vet bill and a new monitor.

1616790188500.png

1616790248600.png

1616791287400.png

https://archive.ph/b2TLg / https://archive.ph/iUFvZ
 
Last edited:
  • Horrifying
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: albert chan, Drowningman, theworstkindofeurofag and 4 others
Last edited:
  • Lunacy
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, albert chan, Kosher Salt and 1 other person
 
  • Agree
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, albert chan, PorkeyDuck and 2 others
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, albert chan, LawTwitter is Dumb and 1 other person
PorkeyDuck said:
Greg's followers can fuck off for using "lives over property" as a justification for all the destruction and theft
Click to expand...
It is absolute fucking shit and it increases my view that the view of Texas that shooting people stealing your shit is completely legitimate.

Your property is something you have often paid for with your own sweat and blood. People have put their entire life's energy into setting up some small mom and pop shop that keeps them and their kids fed, and they think a bunch of worthless parasitic scum destroying it is okay because they're mad about. . .usually some utter fucking bullshit, they're just nihilists who are burning and looting "for sport."

And the victim's life is utterly destroyed because of this, because most insurance policies have some kind of fucking "civil unrest" clause where you don't get your losses covered if a bunch of rabid apes utterly destroy your shit for no reason at all.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Dean Pentel, albert chan, Anonymus Fluhre and 6 others
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: albert chan, Drowningman and Kosher Salt
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back