Ty Beard - Bumbling Fat Wargames Nerd Lolyer High On His Own Farts

[变性黑鬼]

Forgive my sincere posting, I know we're all very hee-hee ha-ha oriented over here, but I hope Ty sees this, and I really hope he rakes Cohen over the coals.

On the last stream, Ty commented to Nick in regards to the repeated ethics complaints that "you and I, we fire back," but actually, Nick has never actually really fired back. All he has done is use the complaints as fuel for his livestreams, because they make great comedy and therefore make him a nice coin. However, he either does not have the spare time and resources to comfortably counter-attack, or is too magnanimous to do so.

But let's be clear, these people are child molesters.

I am using the alternative and outdated definitions of the term molest, of course lolol. Meaning, they want to harm, pester, torment and harass his children. The people filing these complaints want to see Rekieta disbarred, with no concern or empathy for his situation or family.

I remember when he talked about having to get up early and drive for two hours, after receiving a desperate phone call the night before. Some guy had gotten in deep into trouble with the police, and Nick managed to help him out. He obviously felt very good about being able to sacrifice his time and use his hard-earned skills to rescue somebody in a time of need. Whatever else I may think of Christianity, the guy has made me respect real Christian values.

The fact that people have been filing ethics complaints against him with impunity has secretly been making me a little angry. Even though they end up being impotent, it's still a shot aimed at his heart every time.

The attacks on Ty are no different. In their wildest legal fantasies (tantamount to sexual fantasies, as Josh describes them on his streams) people like Cohen imagine Ty being disbarred and his daughters sleeping under an overpass, while they themselves are paraded through the streets of Twitter in an avalanche of likes and retweets. A final social media dopamine rush that will bring them ultimate satisfaction.

The only reason I think Cohen might not deserve to have a 20 year jail term dropped on him is because he has a family and I have a functioning sense of empathy. However, another part of me thinks that his children might be better off without his influence.

 

[变性黑鬼]

 

[Keystone]

Hey Ty if you're ever thinking of a song to encapsulate the case, might I suggest the end credits song for the best 80's movie:

 

[indianshedevil]

Ty needs to up his game!
Next hearing should end like this...

That'll be a wonderful ending for this.

 

[Boss Bass]

That'll be a wonderful ending for this.

I can’t get over the similarities between this scene’s opening and the start of Monica’s deposition.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Twitter

So LawTwitter is picking apart Ty's words.....again

Twitter

archived 17 Aug 2019 01:42:52 UTC

archive.is

 

[indianshedevil]

View attachment 896085

Twitter

So LawTwitter is picking apart Ty's words.....again

http://archive.li/pJFSU

That asshole has nothing better to do.

 

[Genkoda]

That asshole has nothing better to do.

Ultimately it does not matter what that guy does really. He will always be irrelevant. Anonymous posters on kiwi matter more than that guy. Nick gets paid to pick apart law twitter on stream, while that guy gets paid nothing for it. Not that the guy on twitter has any value mind you.

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 896085

Twitter

So LawTwitter is picking apart Ty's words.....again

http://archive.li/pJFSU

He literally doesn't understand what Ty was even talking about. He was explaining what defamation per se is and, yes, if you say someone is a pedophile, and it's true, it is defamatory. Defamatory statements that are true, however, do not give rise to liability if the defendant successfully makes out the affirmative defense of truth.

This guy is a fucking idiot, though, so he's too stupid to understand that.

 

[TJ-Weber]

He literally doesn't understand what Ty was even talking about. He was explaining what defamation per se is and, yes, if you say someone is a pedophile, and it's true, it is defamatory. Defamatory statements that are true, however, do not give rise to liability if the defendant successfully makes out the affirmative defense of truth.

This guy is a fucking idiot, though, so he's too stupid to understand that.

With a name like brown folder he's probably full of shit

 

[变性黑鬼]

He was explaining what defamation per se is and, yes, if you say someone is a pedophile, and it's true, it is defamatory. Defamatory statements that are true, however, do not give rise to liability if the defendant successfully makes out the affirmative defense of truth.

So, in order to make an affirmative defense of truth, would it be enough for MoRon to show that Mignogna was alone in his hotel room with some underage girls for a time, or would they need to practically convict him of a sex crime to make that defense? I'm guessing it depends on how stringent the judge / jury are.

Do semantics come into it? Mignogna's fans are not children, they're teenagers.

I have a feeling that the "are you a pedophile" line of questioning in Ron's depo was a rhetorical technique to try to make him understand how boned he is if he can't show that Mignogna touched kids.

 

[AnOminous]

So, in order to make an affirmative defense of truth, would it be enough for MoRon to show that Mignogna was alone in his hotel room with some underage girls for a time, or would they need to practically convict him of a sex crime to make that defense? I'm guessing it depends on how stringent the judge / jury are.

They never even made that claim. MoRon specifically claims he sexually assaulted her. They need to prove specifically that to establish truth. Not that he cheated on his ex-girlfriend. Not that he hugged a fan. Not that he borrowed a film projector and didn't give it back. Not that his fan club gave him an offensive name. Not that he fucked a "con slut."

 

[变性黑鬼]

They never even made that claim. MoRon specifically claims he sexually assaulted her. They need to prove specifically that to establish truth. Not that he cheated on his ex-girlfriend. Not that he hugged a fan. Not that he borrowed a film projector and didn't give it back. Not that his fan club gave him an offensive name. Not that he fucked a "con slut."

But they are being sued for calling him a child predator in their tweets, so they need to defend against that.

I was putting out an open question as to how they could establish truth as to the child predator / pedophile claim.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

They never even made that claim. MoRon specifically claims he sexually assaulted her. They need to prove specifically that to establish truth. Not that he cheated on his ex-girlfriend. Not that he hugged a fan. Not that he borrowed a film projector and didn't give it back. Not that his fan club gave him an offensive name. Not that he fucked a "con slut."

"Bbbbbbbbbut Vic is the plantiff. He has to prove their stories are not true"

Said any person that listens to Lawtwitter for a minute

 

[Kosher Salt]

So, in order to make an affirmative defense of truth, would it be enough for MoRon to show that Mignogna was alone in his hotel room with some underage girls for a time, or would they need to practically convict him of a sex crime to make that defense? I'm guessing it depends on how stringent the judge / jury are.

First of all, it would matter what sort of evidence they had. If it was based on the testimony of someone who's clearly a malicious liar, that's not very convincing. But even if they had concrete evidence of some kind of sexual misconduct, it'd still be an open question for the jury to decide whether MoRon accusing him of raping Monica damaged his reputation more than simply telling the truth would've. If their false accusations caused even more damage than the truth would have caused, they can still be held accountable for defamation.

They've tried to argue that he's libel-proof, which basically means that their accusations couldn't possibly cause more damage to his reputation than the truth of the matter had already caused him. It's pretty easy to see that this is false, though, because he wasn't fired until they started with the false accusations.

 

[变性黑鬼]

It'd still be an open question for the jury to decide whether MoRon accusing him of raping Monica damaged his reputation more than simply telling the truth would've.

I'm more interested in the child predator stuff. Given that calling someone a pedophile is per se damaging, what would it take to defend that statement against a defamation suit? As in, does the person you are calling a pedophile need a child sexual assault conviction, or can they simply be known in their community for being alone with teenage girls on the regular.

 

[TheClappening]

I'm more interested in the child predator stuff. Given that calling someone a pedophile is per se damaging, what would it take to defend that statement against a defamation suit? As in, does the person you are calling a pedophile need a child sexual assault conviction, or can they simply be known in their community for being alone with teenage girls on the regular.

I'd think you would need a conviction of some kind, because otherwise how would people know you have a sexual attraction to children? You only really prove that if you had CP on your computer (see Brad Wiedenheft or Scott Freeman) or were diddling some kids.

That or you proudly proclaim you're part of NAMBLA on your twitter or something.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm more interested in the child predator stuff. Given that calling someone a pedophile is per se damaging, what would it take to defend that statement against a defamation suit? As in, does the person you are calling a pedophile need a child sexual assault conviction, or can they simply be known in their community for being alone with teenage girls on the regular.

If you were raising the affirmative defense of truth, you'd have to prove it was true by a preponderance of the evidence, which would be anything admissible that the finder of fact (judge or jury) found persuasive.

You wouldn't necessarily have to prove it was true to defend against it, though. If you could show you relied on evidence, which could be the same evidence used if you were also claiming it were true, which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that the plaintiff were a pedophile, that would also be a defense.

In other words, even if it weren't true, if you could show you acted without actual malice (for a public figure) or non-negligently, that would also a be a defense, because the plaintiff couldn't prove the requisite state of mind to commit the tort.

As an example, assume it somehow gets proven absolutely that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile (and is still alive). A statement that he was a pedophile would be defamatory and false. However, if you pointed out all the things that led you to believe he was after having made that statement, you would probably have a defense against a libel suit because a reasonable person could have relied on that information in good faith and non-negligently, and concluded he was a pedophile, whether correctly or not.

So while truth (of the ultimate gist of the statement which is what a reasonable reader of it would believe it to mean) is an absolute defense against defamation, you don't need to prove truth to defend the case. You just have to prove you made the statement non-negligently or (for a public figure) without actual malice.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

During my vacation, I visited the offices of BHBH and dropped off a thank you letter for their work in helping Vic.
Here is a picture I took:

Spoiler

(sorry for the resolution, I stupidly did not allow the camera to focus enough)

The lawyers were not present, but I did get Ty's business card from the receptionist.

I've also bought a hardcover version of Fistful of TOWs and I hope to get Ty's signature should the opportunity present itself one day.
If not, oh well.

 

[变性黑鬼]

As an example, assume it somehow gets proven absolutely that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile (and is still alive). A statement that he was a pedophile would be defamatory and false. However, if you pointed out all the things that led you to believe he was after having made that statement, you would probably have a defense against a libel suit because a reasonable person could have relied on that information in good faith and non-negligently, and concluded he was a pedophile, whether correctly or not.

That is a good example, because Michael was acquitted, but most people would still casually refer to him as a pedophile, child predator, molester, etcetera. Which, if brought to court would be defamatory. Although, in Michael's case, he's definitely libel-proof due to the multi-million dollar mass media and law enforcement smear campaign against him.

If you could show you relied on evidence, which could be the same evidence used if you were also claiming it were true

This is intriguing. So, we don't need a child sex conviction to defend against the defamation claim, but we do need evidence to support the child sex claim that is better than a mere rumor from a single person. MoRon need to prove that everybody in the English language anime community considered Mignogna a pedophile before MoRon started that rumor about him lol