Preston Poulter et al v. Ali "Dean" Assaf et al (2021)

[Mister Dongs]

As far as current status, as best I know:
- Cridious is fighting with Preston legally over the trademark and the issue of if Cridious abandoned it.
- Dark Gift's application received a non-final office action from the trademark office and a notice of suspension. There has been no action since so I think he is out of the game.
- @FROG 's trademark application will get in front of an initial examiner probably later this summer.

Excellent post.
But there have been a few developments on the Comicsgate trademark struggle from this point forward that I'd like to add.

- During the previously mentioned period where Preston Poulter was going around social media taunting his future plans to litigate and DMCA anyone using the Comicsgate name without his permission, he went and tried this with the Comicsgate.org site (basically a aggregator site for Comicsgate campaingns and content) and its owner Robert Romano.

This turned out to be a terrible mistake on Preston's part as while Romano might be known within Comicsgate as a softspoken nerd who sometimes plays backup keyboard on DarkGift Comics' karaoke streams to a dozen or two people, his day job turned out to be Vice President of Public Policy for a conservative lobbyist firm

Romano proceeded to reveal his true litigational power level against a vexatious amateur like Preston as he discretely convinced Cridious to turn over his claim to the Comicsgate trademark to Frog and then had a claim on Frog's behalf drafted on April 30th by some high-powered lawyer specializing in patents and IP based in Washington basically saying that Frog's monetized Comicsgate youtube show and collecting superchats for it in 2018 show superior rights to the trademark, especially for youtube shows.

One and only one individual has obtained superior rights to the COMICSGATE trademark: Ethan Van Sciver

The COMICSGATE TrademarkSummaryThe mark COMICSGATE is now in public use. This letter will: (1) describe the legal rights that exist at this time in the COMICSGATE trademark, (2) establish

comicsgate.org

His work done squashing Preston like a bug, Robert then returned to obscurity and tending his website along with playing piano with friends on D-list youtube shows. As a side effect, if Frog's trademark claim passes, logically it would mean he would have trademark rights over Poulter's "Last week in Comicsgate" program as well. It was at this point that Preston started getting the wheels for his defamation lawsuit going, which may be an indication that the warchest built for a reign of paper terror over the trademark may as well be used for something else at this point.

- DarkGift Comics' claim to the Comicsgate trademark was declined when his argument, that he wasn't trademarking the existent Comicsgate TM but merely an image with "Comicsgate" written on it with text, was rejected on account of being retarded. However he did not come out of this empty handed as while he did not win the trademark, he did win the attention of Preston's ex-wife Auby who seemed taken with Grift's "bad boy" charm; the former Mrs. Poulter waxing lyrical on how the two met in several disjointed, barely comprehensible monologues. The two have decided to go into creative partnership and launch an IGG for Hunting Alice, starring the writer's alter-ego "Mistress Roulette".

 

[In Remission]

In addition, by innuendo, they ascribed the same alleged deviant behavior of John T. Lamont

Defendants have accused Plaintiffs of pedophilia, deviant behavior and participants in “lolicon.”

Is his lawyer aware that he has a Deviant Art account? He recently purged this image from the site (and his Patreon). It's still available on subscribestar. Anyone with cash to burn might want to check what else he has behind the paywall before it's gone.

https://archive.ph/bIcbC

 

[Smug Freiza]

For those who missed the Nick Rekieta livestream discussing the filing Preston and Jon Lamont's attorney filed, the stream has now been uploaded to the RekietaLaw Live archive channel.

The timestamp for the beginning for the discussion begins at the [57:14] mark.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

For those who missed the Nick Rekieta livestream discussing the filing Preston and Jon Lamont's attorney filed, the stream has now been uploaded to the RekietaLaw Live archive channel.

The timestamp for the beginning for the discussion begins at the [57:14] mark.

My apologies to everyone. I wanted to get a local archive of Rekieta going over the case on here but I'm having a hard time reducing the resolution enough to attach it.

 

[Strix454]

Is his lawyer aware that he has a Deviant Art account? He recently purged this image from the site (and his Patreon). It's still available on subscribestar. Anyone with cash to burn might want to check what else he has behind the paywall before it's gone.

https://archive.ph/bIcbC

Given the numerous inaccuracies in the complaint generated by the attorney, I'm not sure that they know much of anything. Or at least they don't know anything not from Preston's own warped perspective on things. I really wonder if the law firm has even seen the art material that they going to be taking into a Federal Court in Texas to defend.

By their own definitions in the complaint (and Lamont's own words), I think they have already lost on if this stuff is Lolicon. All that is left to them is trying to argue to a judge that lolicon defined by Preston's own attorneys as "a fascination with cartoons of very young-looking girls engaged in varying degrees of erotic behavior" is not pediophliic. And that to call it pediophilic is objectively false. Good luck with that.

And there is a big problem with the complaints about EVS in the document. (a) The document misrepresents Preston as the "owner "of comicsgate and (b) The document misrepresents the ACTIVE trademark dispute between EVS and Preston. EVS had already filed his claim to the "comicsgate" trademark before the comments cited in the document. The claims against EVS are the weakest
because he would have a compelling interest in defending the trademark he was attempting to obtain against association with works like "the demonatrix".

Yesterday Preston himself said on Mike S. Miller's discord that "When people read the suit, they are shocked at the bizarre, unlawful behavior of EVS and friends." That is delusional.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Yesterday Preston himself said on Mike S. Miller's discord that "When people read the suit, they are shocked at the bizarre, unlawful behavior of EVS and friends." That is delusional.

Preston must be talking to the voices in his head or fellow deviants because there is no way a sensible person looks at that filing and doesn't think its a slopfest.

 

[Captain Manning]

I took the liberty of making this clip from Ethan's latest show. I think it's kinda important to have a reference point on what to expect out of Ethan. I foresee a lot of people asking after Ethan's take in the future. Especially since this thread is now "live" in L&L LLP.

HIGHLIGHTS

- Ethan is aware he is being sued by PP (note the expression on his face when he says the name).
- Ethan has handed the lawsuit off to his lawyers.
- Ethan will not be discussing the lawsuit publicly, and will decline to answer all questions.
- Ethan is aware other people are discussing the lawsuit and he is fine with that ("they absolutely should"). He understands it is fun to gossip. He specifically mentions Rekieta's show.
- In the course of this, Ethan gets a superchat asking him to go on Rekieta's show. Ethan declines.
- Ethan will be happy to discuss the lawsuit AFTER conclusion of the lawsuit.
- Ethan feels it is important he handle this in a "mature" fashion.
- Ethan feels the more money he makes, the more likely he is going to be sued.

All pretty standard and reasonable IMO.

Yesterday Preston himself said on Mike S. Miller's discord that "When people read the suit, they are shocked at the bizarre, unlawful behavior of EVS and friends." That is delusional.

That is here, BTW, if anybody wants to read the full convo. The other highlights from that is Miller is saying stupid shit that almost seems supportive of Preston, and Preston seems to be suggesting he wants to sue Testefy.

And yes. It is delusional.

 

[jspit2.0]

I took the liberty of making this clip from Ethan's latest show. I think it's kinda important to have a reference point on what to expect out of Ethan. I foresee a lot of people asking after Ethan's take in the future. Especially since this thread is now "live" in L&L LLP.

View attachment 2218418

HIGHLIGHTS

- Ethan is aware he is being sued by PP (note the expression on his face when he says the name).
- Ethan has handed the lawsuit off to his lawyers.
- Ethan will not be discussing the lawsuit publicly, and will decline to answer all questions.
- Ethan is aware other people are discussing the lawsuit and he is fine with that ("they absolutely should"). He understands it is fun to gossip. He specifically mentions Rekieta's show.
- In the course of this, Ethan gets a superchat asking him to go on Rekieta's show. Ethan declines.
- Ethan will be happy to discuss the lawsuit AFTER conclusion of the lawsuit.
- Ethan feels it is important he handle this in a "mature" fashion.
- Ethan feels the more money he makes, the more likely he is going to be sued.

All pretty standard and reasonable IMO.


That is here, BTW, if anybody wants to read the full convo. The other highlights from that is Miller is saying stupid shit that almost seems supportive of Preston, and Preston seems to be suggesting he wants to sue Testefy.

And yes. It is delusional.

I hope unlike Simple Zach, Ethan doesn't take a knee. I really want Preston to get hammered on this.

 

[Yuusha-sama]

My apologies to everyone. I wanted to get a local archive of Rekieta going over the case on here but I'm having a hard time reducing the resolution enough to attach it.

If you have issues just upload an archive on bitchute and you could still upload an audio file here.
I listened to that segment while doing work in the garden.
Everybody can get the filing from the OP if they want to read and listen, in case the other archives are down.

By their own definitions in the complaint (and Lamont's own words), I think they have already lost on if this stuff is Lolicon. All that is left to them is trying to argue to a judge that lolicon defined by Preston's own attorneys as "a fascination with cartoons of very young-looking girls engaged in varying degrees of erotic behavior" is not pediophliic. And that to call it pediophilic is objectively false. Good luck with that.

I think it is even hard to make a libel case against DA_Talks for calling Lamont a pedophile.
First of all it is arguably his opinion which is protected under free speech.
Also this:

There is a reasonable argument that one can think that Lamont is a pedophile or at least a hebephile.
With all his talk about loli and loli posting.(dude really? You are in your 40s.)
Even on his Kickstarter page he claimed the girl is 17,
Every fucking porn artists, including Shadman claims that the people depicted in their art are over 18,
even if they are definitely not.
DA_Talks even stated that he doesn't think that John Lamont touches kids,
he is just attracted to them(which he arguably is).

BTW Preston, John Lamont is a pedophile.

 

[Captain Manning]

If you have issues just upload an archive on bitchute and you could still upload an audio file here.
I listened to that segment while doing work in the garden.
Everybody can get the filing from the OP if they want to read and listen, in case the other archives are down.

I think it is even hard to make a libel case against DA_Talks for calling Lamont a pedophile.
First of all it is arguably his opinion which is protected under free speech.
Also this:
View attachment 2218669
There is a reasonable argument that one can think that Lamont is a pedophile or at least a hebephile.
With all his talk about loli and loli posting.(dude really? You are in your 40s.)
Even on his Kickstarter page he claimed the girl is 17,
Every fucking porn artists, including Shadman claims that the people depicted in their art are over 18,
even if they are definitely not.
DA_Talks even stated that he doesn't think that John Lamont touches kids,
he is just attracted to them(which he arguably is).

BTW Preston, John Lamont is a pedophile.

Not only that, but Kickstarter, and not the evil Frog collective, shut that shit down because it's a TOS violation. They are in no mood to court controversy over allowing overtly sexual depictions of people under 18. Nobody brigaded Kickstarter. Nobody had to.

That conveniently gets omitted from his lawsuit. John Lamont fucked John Lamont out of his own crowdfund campaign. Herp derp.

 

[jspit2.0]

If you have issues just upload an archive on bitchute and you could still upload an audio file here.
I listened to that segment while doing work in the garden.
Everybody can get the filing from the OP if they want to read and listen, in case the other archives are down.

I think it is even hard to make a libel case against DA_Talks for calling Lamont a pedophile.
First of all it is arguably his opinion which is protected under free speech.
Also this:
View attachment 2218669
There is a reasonable argument that one can think that Lamont is a pedophile or at least a hebephile.
With all his talk about loli and loli posting.(dude really? You are in your 40s.)
Even on his Kickstarter page he claimed the girl is 17,
Every fucking porn artists, including Shadman claims that the people depicted in their art are over 18,
even if they are definitely not.
DA_Talks even stated that he doesn't think that John Lamont touches kids,
he is just attracted to them(which he arguably is).

BTW Preston, John Lamont is a pedophile.

After research, yay!, I'm at the following...

Libel is print, slander spoken provably false statements made maliciously. Assault? I'm going to assume that was others talking about shooting pedophiles. Repeatedly.

Where I run into trouble is after scouring it I never found evidence of Vikki or Dean calling Preston a Pedophile. Rather, they stated an opinion, which is precluded for Libel/Slander purposes.

Open question, are any of the people here public figures?

 

[Strix454]

After research, yay!, I'm at the following...

Libel is print, slander spoken provably false statements made maliciously. Assault? I'm going to assume that was others talking about shooting pedophiles. Repeatedly.

Where I run into trouble is after scouring it I never found evidence of Vikki or Dean calling Preston a Pedophile. Rather, they stated an opinion, which is precluded for Libel/Slander purposes.

Open question, are any of the people here public figures?

My opinion would be that Preston would meet the "limited public figure" standard by the way he describes himself in the complaint. Lamont's status as any kind of public figure is less clear.

The complaint claims that Vikki and Dean called Preston a Pedophile "by innuendo" (paragraph 16). They seemed to struggle to find direct accusations against Preston in the videos. There is an argument made that by attacking Preston for hosting & defending Lamont, they were accusing Preston of the same things as Lamont. That is a really thin argument made even worse by the lack of quotes to support it in the complaint. i.e. they never quote what they call the innuendo.

The claim concerning EVS is that by EVS saying that he didn't want Child Pornography distributed under the comicsgate trademark by Preston, that he was accusing Preston of being a child pornographer. That is also another indirect and problematic argument. Its also very weak because EVS is in an ongoing dispute over the comicsgate trademark with Preston. That EVS made the statements directly in the context of the trademark makes a libel claim problematic. The other problem is that saying Preston might allow a trademark to be put on another persons CP is not the same as saying that Preston is a publisher or creator of CP himself.

 

[jspit2.0]

My opinion would be that Preston would meet the "limited public figure" standard by the way he describes himself in the complaint. Lamont's status as any kind of public figure is less clear.

The complaint claims that Vikki and Dean called Preston a Pedophile "by innuendo" (paragraph 16). They seemed to struggle to find direct accusations against Preston in the videos. There is an argument made that by attacking Preston for hosting & defending Lamont, they were accusing Preston of the same things as Lamont. That is a really thin argument made even worse by the lack of quotes to support it in the complaint. i.e. they never quote what they call the innuendo.

The claim concerning EVS is that by EVS saying that he didn't want Child Pornography distributed under the comicsgate trademark by Preston, that he was accusing Preston of being a child pornographer. That is also another indirect and problematic argument. Its also very weak because EVS is in an ongoing dispute over the comicsgate trademark with Preston. That EVS made the statements directly in the context of the trademark makes a libel claim problematic. The other problem is that saying Preston might allow a trademark to be put on another persons CP is not the same as saying that Preston is a publisher or creator of CP himself.

Hm. Add to that Preston has indicated he has no problem publishing pornography and even then, would Ethan's statement qualify as a false claim?

Preston has indicated a willingness to publish pornography and loli which is in the opinion of many child porn.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

The judge has issued an order telling Preston that he needs to amend the complaint with factual reasons as to why the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, namely how they can prove the damages are over $75,000 excluding costs, or the case will be dismissed immediately. That means the defendants will not have to do anything or shell out any money. Remember how I said there's no actual facts or evidence present?

Also, they have to prove $75,000 for each defendant, not combine it to reach that number. That means Preston and John have to show a total of $225,000.

In light of this Order, Plaintiffs may amend their Complaint within ten (10) days from the date this Order is signed. Failure to properly establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction will result in dismissal without further notice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

Dumb questions:
(1) Does "ten days" mean ten business days or ten calendar days?
(2) Does the day the order is signed (May 25) count as day # 1, or does the ten day count start the following day?
(3) Is this the sort of thing you just write a pro forma letter about on the last day and get what amounts to an automatic extension of time to file in normal court procedure?

Just curious by what date a response must be received to avoid automatic dismissal.

 

[TherapyMan]

Dumb questions:
(1) Does "ten days" mean ten business days or ten calendar days?
(2) Does the day the order is signed (May 25) count as day # 1, or does the ten day count start the following day?
(3) Is this the sort of thing you just write a pro forma letter about on the last day and get what amounts to an automatic extension of time to file in normal court procedure?

Just curious by what date a response must be received to avoid automatic dismissal.

The counting of days is governed by Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Spoiler: Relevant Text

(a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

With the rules in mind, let's calculate our ten-day limit. The order was signed on May 25th, which fell on a Friday. Since we exclude the day the order was signed, the time period started running on Saturday, May 26th. Ten days from May 26th works out to be Tuesday, June 6th. We don't care that the clock started running on Saturday or that a legal holiday fell between during the time window since neither a weekend nor a legal holiday constitutes the last day (sorry D-Day). Under local rule 6.1 for the Northern District of Texas, any filing made before midnight Central Time on that day. So the latest possible time the response would could be due would be 11:59PM Central Time, on Tuesday, June 6th.

 

[Captain Manning]

So the latest possible time the response would could be due would be 11:59PM Central Time, on Tuesday, June 6th.

D-Day.



Nice.

 

[Yuusha-sama]

I gathered a few more pictures of John Lamont so you guys could get a better image of what he is like.

Spoiler: more

Your friend Preston likes it up his ass, I guess opposites attract.

John Lamont on Twitter: "Don't tell @mrtechbehr, but I love the white…

archived 1 Jun 2021 10:18:23 UTC

archive.ph

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

I gathered a few more pictures of John Lamont so you guys could get a better image of what he is like.
View attachment 2220731

Spoiler: more

View attachment 2220728View attachment 2220729View attachment 2220730

View attachment 2220732

Your friend Preston likes it up his ass, I guess opposites attract.
View attachment 2220734

John Lamont on Twitter: "Don't tell @mrtechbehr, but I love the white…

archived 1 Jun 2021 10:18:23 UTC

archive.ph

And here I thought @PocketJacks' cuck porn would be the lowest this could possibly go.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Thanks for the info, @TherapyMan . Appreciate it. However...

The order was signed on May 25th, which fell on a Friday.

May 25th fell on a Tuesday, not a Friday. (I'm guessing you were looking at a June calendar? June 25th does fall on a Friday.) Meaning if we start with May 26 as day one of our Cuck Countdown™ and go strictly by calendar days -- basically counting weekends and holidays -- the filing has to be made by June 4th, this Friday.

Assuming the court doesn't routinely accept late filings, assuming pro forma extensions aren't accepted and so on.

BTW, spotted this this morning on Twitter, in a thread @TESTEFY-HD started. Link / Archive .

So we shall see, I guess.

 

[TherapyMan]

Thanks for the info, @TherapyMan . Appreciate it. However...

May 25th fell on a Tuesday, not a Friday. (I'm guessing you were looking at a June calendar? June 25th does fall on a Friday.) Meaning if we start with May 26 as day one of our Cuck Countdown™ and go strictly by calendar days -- basically counting weekends and holidays -- the filing has to be made by June 4th, this Friday.

Yes, I goofed just like you said! Forgot the month had switched to June and didn't change the calendar back to May when looking at the dates.