, 1651 tweets, 458 min read Read on Twitter
Earlier today I learned about this #StandWithVic hashtag and the total gibberish sent by his lawyers as part of a LOLsuit

Reminder to check out the defamation basics #Law140 on why this is going to end poorly for him
You seem to have missed the thread explaining the law

Not entirely surprised literacy is not your strong suit though

No clue whotf Ty Beard is, but I've been called worse by better so ::shrug::

"KickVic" filed a defamation lawsuit? Where is it?

This certainly sounds like you saying "No, they didn't file a lawsuit and I'm just being obtuse for sport"

Had *just* finished sending a CHUD reference via DM before I saw this 😂

I have no meaningful anime knowledge outside of recognizing the names of a handful of series

But I know the First Amendment quite well

Not substantively different than any random police brutality tweet, tbqh

Ah, he's the f*cking moron who doesn't understand defamation law! And appears to be wildly insecure if he's advertising Mensa status on his law firm bio

Next time y'all forewarn me first plz? 😂

If someone said "You're a goat-f*cking piece of sh*t" they wouldn't have defamed you, even though goat-f*cking is criminal

The sad part is none of these people stick around long enough to get the "Told ya" tweets after the case is tossed

"something something blue check! durka durka"

All of us are like the best of us; all of them are like the worst of them

If I knew, I'd be up to my eyeballs in that sweet sweet crowdfunding money

Which paragraphs of the lawsuit identify 1️⃣ statements of provable fact that are 2️⃣ false, 3️⃣ injurious, and 4️⃣ made with actual malice?

They don't think before they tweet, it's all performative. Hence the desperation for a live "debate" on something that's not debatable

No no, which *paragraphs*

Here's the full lawsuit for you: scribd.com/document/40676…

Paragraph numbers plz kkthx

As @Popehat often says: "Vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery"

Depends on the strength of Texas's anti-SLAPP statute in practice

If Defemdants file an anti-SLAPP motion and win, case would be dismissed and defendants awarded their attorney fees

Nothing wrong with Mensa at all, many of us are members. We just don't feel compelled to advertise it to prove how smart we are.

And I read the lawsuit, which is the only context needed to know it will end in an L

Make sure you're still here when this case gets dismissed however many months from now. I'll have forgotten about you and will need a reminder to tweet the "I told you so" 😘

I enjoy the magazine tbh. Never been to any events

Do you speak English?

I'm trying to figure out what part of "read the entire lawsuit" translated to "one line of stacktrace" in your mind?

Not licensed in Texas sadly, but yes I typically take defamation cases pro bono. The money gets made on the back end with the sanctions.

I read the lawsuit, which is all the court will be considering until summary judgment. What "other parts of the claim" have actually been pled?

This is pretty weak sauce as far as insults go

Did it once (in LA) and decided I would never do it again 😂

Got 27 felonies dismissed in the process though

They also deliberately conflate statements made by different parties under the defamation, trying to take a marginally stronger claim ("insider knowledge") and using it to bootstrap against other comments that are not defamatory ("predator," etc)

First Amendment law doesn't vary by state

If any of you are still here (unlikely), I'll admit I was wrong

Not holding my breath of course

You didn't answer the question

It sounds like you're telling me no other parts have been pled, but that you've got a bunch of stuff to use in summary judgment if the defamation claim survives that far

Did Texas repeal their anti-SLAPP statute?

Already read the lawsuit, and provided a link to it

Tweet less. Read more.

Link to the lawsuit is included mid-thread; go here: scribd.com/document/40676…

2 defendants' Motions to Quash Deposition are here: scribd.com/document/40947…

Don't know if any other docs have been filed

You're not making the point you think you're making

Try again. Do better.

The actual lawsuit says pretty clearly that Vic is a public figure

You should read it

There are plenty of public figures I don't know about

Including voice actors for "the lead character" in an "instant ... success" film who then "attend[] fan conventions, approximately 35-40 per year"

May want to read the thread before commenting next time, you'll look less uninformed

If they're hanging their hopes on him not being a public figure – when he's described in trade publications as "a household name" among anime enthusiasts – they're going to have a bad time

And even if we assumed against all evidence that he *wasn't* a public figure, it's still a matter of public concern

Plaintiff will have to prove actual malice to have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning

@kkearns
No lie: quite a few @'s insisting that "malicious intent" existed so therefore actual malice is there

No. A limited purpose public figure can exist even if they didn't seek out the attention at all; similarly, a matter can be of public concern even if the person is totally private. See Rosenbloom v Metromedia Inc, 403 US 29 (1971)

"Actual malice" – the term defined by the courts in defamation cases – means a statement was made knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for whether it was true or false

Whether I hate you and want to destroy your career doesn't factor in

"step[ping] in with real lawyers" is the near-entirety of litigation

Do you understand what lawyers do?

Texas lawyer weighs in on Texas's anti-SLAPP law
⬇️⬇️⬇️
There's also an argument to be made that everyone with a Verified account is a public figure in some form or another, as there has to be material already in the public domain to confirm the verification

Thanks, but I'll wait for the verdict. Good luck.

Wait, so the guy admitted to the press the gist of what happened? 😂😂😂

Is... is this supposed to be an insult?

Literally none of which is relevant to the legal standard of "actual malice"

I'm "back[ing] it up" here. Publicly. With links to pleadings and case law.

Not calling someone with a vested interest in the outcome to get their private spin, when ultimately it's in the hands of a judge anyway
I fear my God, and the body odor of the trolls in my @'s. That's about it.

No

Falsity is an element of a defamation claim. The burden is on the Plaintiff.

The Defendant has the option, if they decide to use it, to assert truth as an affirmative defense. But even if they don't prove truth, the Plaintiff must prove falsity.

That's not at all what "public figure" means

Criminal court wraps at 1pm. No civil cases today.

You don't know more about defamation law than me.

Otherwise, quality tweet!

💯

I'd add that courts considers statements within the context in which they're made, and Twitter is known for vitriol and hyperbole

As best I can anyway 😂 I'm getting a deluge of gibberish

It doesn't prove actual malice, no

Because "actual malice" and "malice" are different things

Totally agree, I'm not well-versed in running damage control. I don't file subpar lawsuits that then require it.

Was this supposed to be an insult?

What constitutes defamation varies by state, but can never cross the boundaries of the First Amendment. Anywhere.

And TX actually has a narrower scope of defamation than NC. Anything not-defamatory here won't be there either.

Thanks for playing though?

Contours of affirmative defenses like protection of others vary by state, but typically are used for non-speech torts (e.g. battery) & criminal cases

Statements based on disclosed depo testimony would be protected though. Opinion based on disclosed facts

Had a similar experience defending a nudist group from a defamation lawsuit

Turned out the Plaintiff had been groping women for years

That thread ends here, for those interested in reading it:

I could tweet "@gbrooding is a serial rapist and rabid goat-f*cker who's molested dozens of women and goats alike" – with no proof at all whatsoever – and the burden would remain on you to prove falsity if you decided to sue for defamation

Finding them requires a rare combination of 1️⃣ literacy and 2️⃣ being able to scroll a thread

Burden is on you to prove falsity regardless, because falsity is a required element of defamation claims. As a non-public figure, you just wouldn't have to prove the extra element of actual malice as well.

I sure hope you're not as dim as you sound

You're entirely, completely, 100% wrong

I'm assuming you didn't actually read the screenshot you shared?

Defamation per se applies to only certain kinds of statements, and even then only means the 4th element of damages is presumed to exist

You – the Plaintiff – still have to prove falsity

(As much as @GBrooding likes f*cking goats, goat-f*cking is not a crime of moral turpitude under Texas law)
This is correct. Though I suspect @GBrooding is too deep in goats to spend his spare time as a kiddie diddler

No. Ron and Rial don't have to prove anything at all. They can voluntarily choose to do so (as truth is an "affirmative" defense, meaning it has to be actively asserted by a defendant) but it's not required.

Vic must still prove falsity though

"LOLsuit" predates the Maddox case by almost two decades. Try again champ.

You people really live in these weird bubbles where you don't realize what goes on in the outside world. It's sad.

Even UrbanDictionary had LOLsuit 14yrs ago
I'm definitely not doing the investigation on that one 😷

😂😂😂

That's not how any of this works. But if @GBrooding wants to sue me for calling him a rabid goat-f*cker with rapist tendencies, I'll happily accept service of the LOLsuit

Basically 😂

And the kitty is only being fostered for now – can't keep him until we know he'll get along with the dog and other cat!

No, it's not.

And no, that wouldn't be either.

Very witty though for a goat-f*cker!

I'm sure that's buried somewhere in the @'s. They've also decided that because I do criminal defense I can't possibly know about defamation law (cases I also defend), and that I'm a terrible lawyer because I live in Durham and/or tweet a lot

Y'all stay camped out in my @'s like love-starved groupies desperate for attention

You'd think senpai could get a little appreciation for finally noticing you...

It always depends on the context. "Bob raped Jane!" could be referring to a physical assault, or a crude way of saying Jane got curbstomped in a debate

"Bob's a rapist," on the other hand, is typically an opinion ("rhetorical hyperbole")

Where it gets into a gray area is when someone implies there are undisclosed facts that only they know about. "I've done an investigation, and based on what I found, Bob's a rapist" could potentially be defamatory...

2/
@ExKage
...unless the basis for that opinion is disclosed. "I did an investigation, here's the PDF, and I've concluded Bob's a rapist" isn't defamatory; the response is for the aggrieved party to publish their own spin, not to sue in court

3/3
@ExKage
Now we're on the "well the defamation case might lose but the tortious intereference with contract claim is a definite winner!"

Winning a TIC case requires an existing contract. No contracts are alleged anywhere in the lawsuit.
Only so many ways I can explain basic legal concepts to folks lacking the interest or intellectual capacity to grasp them

Trespass to Feelz in the 2nd degree

Representing poor folks tends to have that effect, yes

Was that supposed to be an insult?

It's like being back in law school, with the professor asking a trick question

Spoke to Nick several times mid-thread. If you took your dick out of that goat long enough to read, you'd notice

Because my followers and assorted passerby find it immensely entertaining

You think "Vic is the legal definition of harassment" is a provable statement of fact?

How many times were you dropped as a child?

Statements of fact must be objectively provable, yes

In addition, context can make several theoretically-provable "facts" instead treated as rhetorical hyperbole ("Vic's a pedophile") / opinion

Which matters not-at-all in the legal analysis, esp on the motion to dismiss and inevitable anti-SLAPP motion that's coming

You're a pedophile

I'll accept service of the lawsuit at 311 E Main Street, Durham NC 27701

Hadn't heard this, definitely stealing it

Got @'d on a tweet with a LOLable takedown letter, was told a lawsuit had already been filed, Googled it, read it, and laughed at it

The burden of proof always rests with the Plaintiff

Falsity is an element of defamation

The burden is on the Plaintiff to prove falsity

Already have at several points in the thread

Tweet less. Read more.

Surely you can find a lawyer to take the case on contingency, or via a crowdfunded GFM

It's not an "except"

Plaintiff goes first in a trial. He has to prove falsity first, before the Defendants present any evidence at all whatsoever

The Defendants can choose to claim truth as an affirmative defense, and then would present evidence of that

Torts was just CrimLaw with blurred lines instead of bright ones 😉

No, because "malice" and "actual malice" are different legal concepts

As has been explained as nauseum already

Also already done several times mid-thread

No, @GBrooding was actually going in the right direction that time

Defendants have no burden at all, but if they assert an affirmative defense – truth, in this case – they'd have to prove truthfulness

After Vic proved falsity first though

Have you seen the dumpster fire in my @'s? Hard pass fam

We do these already, under the #Law140 hashtag ☺️

It's quite simple: start with this tweet, then scroll up until you find it

No "Copy+Paste" to hit on a phone, sorry

Definitely faster if you just scrolled

You called it 😂 At least the shift change has provided some variety

The First Amendment doesn't apply in Texas? Good to know

You don't have to believe me, idgaf. How about you donate $100 to a charity of my choice when it turns I'm right instead?

Already talked to both of them mid-thread. Try joining a conversation sooner next time.

Actually I was @'d at lunchtime today. The rest of you decided to hop into my @'s

Can't tortiously interfere with a contract that's not alleged

Actually I'm catching up on Agents of SHIELD

The "Mr. Super Lawyer" thing is pretty dumb, jsyk

I've been defending defamation lawsuits for 7 years now

I just also do it for free, so not much sense in broadcasting it

I was so glad they brought it back for another season!

Already noted several mid-thread. Feel free to scroll up and read them.

Oh dear, I'm going to be doxxed on sh*t that's already been public for years now 😱

When was the last time you got laid? You seem very unsatisfied

🤡: "Do X"
👴🏼: "I already did. Scroll."
🤡: "Well then it should be easy to do it again!"

Do y'all practice among yourselves on this type of retort?

Witty!

There won't be a trial though, hence why I said I'd wait for the verdict instead

Nah, definitely would be faster for you to just scroll the thread

Given the subject matter, dumber than a bucketful of used condoms

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Apparently folks' pride is sufficiently injured they're talking about me on a YouTube livestream though. Got told I was being *destroyed* as we speak.

It's called "multitasking"

You should look it up

Because the Defendants already have quite-good attorneys representing them

I'll happily jump in pro bono if they decide they want me on board though

Tweeting the same thing 2x in 60 seconds? Do you do everything this prematurely?

Never been a public defender, I like being able to fire my clients

Myself, and many others, have already explained why they're wrong.

Here. Publicly. For folks to read at their discretion without logging in to a midnight livestream.

Now we wait for the anti-SLAPP motion and a judge's ruling

"Debate me you coward" is one of the dumbest f*cking rhetorical tropes on here
I brought up the entire lawsuit with a link to its entire text, which was followed by sheep bleating "notice pleading!" and other assorted inanities

They could've just asked, I could've sent them to the guy who did the oppo research on me in 2016

Sure. How would you like to pay my retainer?

That's actually a very interesting legal question that I'm not sure the State Bar here has addressed 😂

Given the recurring nature, I wonder if it would be treated like a prepaid plan 🤔

I'm impressed the double cuck dare worked tbqh

I would have a damned FIELD DAY if all my clients had to do is take the stand and say "that's not true" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Sadly, as entertaining as this has all been, I actually have to be in court tomorrow so I need to go to bed

Someone let me know the results of the doxxing! I'll be interested to know what the oppo research team missed, should be quite useful for the next time I run 😬
Kinda disappointed in the dox job tbh. All stuff that's public record and known about for literal years.

I got a DM that they *did* figure out my dog's name is...

::drumroll::

...Samson 😂
(Samson died in October 2017. We raised money for the APS in his honor.)

I see the insults didn't ripen overnight either
And the reason they think "Super Lawyer" is an insult is because someone told them you have to pay to be in it 😂
I couldn't afford a CPAP machine, you think I'm going to pay to join one of the several dozen "awards" that attorneys get solicitations for every week?

At least be original and say I paid to join the American Association of Justice or some other random sequence of letters
Bad analogy, I do criminal defense work so I wouldn't handle the retaliation myself

They found my paperwork setting up the law firm, which is a public record

They pulled some Accurint data, which is pulled from public records

They found the contents of when I ran for office. Still public.

It's sad really

I get a letter at least once a week. I'm a Top 10 Litigation Advocate Under 40, a Top 40 Criminal Law Lawyer, etc etc etc...

...if I just pay $450 or some such 😂

Someone who spent time doing law instead of YouTube or sham defamation suits would probably have the same experience
@notjimsteele
We've been doing e-begging 5-6x a year for 4 years now

I'll compile a list at some point, they're all buried in the tweets

Totally caught up! Definitely changed but still fun

I should definitely do this on my site 😂

No one ever said truth was a defense to tortious interference with contracts

Literally no one

We said truth was an affirmative defense to defamation. The fact no contract was alleged is a defense to TIC

Your rhetorical sleight-of-hand skills suck

Ah. Why would he think I know him? 😂😂😂

These people are duuuuuumb

Didn't you know? We all talk on the members-only SuperLawyer forums to ask for help

Court most mornings is a lot of sitting around waiting for cases to be called. This helps with the boredom ☺️

As amusing as the admiration for the farms is, they will never have anything on opposition research teams in politics

There's a reason they haven't found anything I didn't already know about years ago 😉
And he's been going on about it longer than I have! 😂

He's in MAF? Seems to know what he's doing then, good

Oh sh*t, I didn't know these were a thing! I need MOAR

Yes, that would be First Amendment-protected expression and not defamatory

I'm just impressed you stopped f*cking that goat long enough to figure that out

It's a little creepy that you and Nikolai came up with the same hypothetical

But yes, insults aren't defamatory so this is protected speech

The specificity makes it sound like you're projecting though 🤔

Insults are never defamatory people

Never

In any state in the union
I know. Knock me over with a feather etc etc

You can do better! Put some effort in to it

Sure. If they make it past summary judgment, I'll donate $100 to charity. If they then win at trial, I'll donate another $100.

I assume they think it's edgy?

Not realizing that lawyers get worse insults pretty regularly?

I sure hope not. My @'s provide weekly confirmation that we *desperately* need more variety in insults

Plaintiff's never get to show damages if the statements aren't defamatory

Defamation has multiple elements. Each box has to be checked before you ever get to the damages phase of a trial.

These are the 4 core elements of defamation, everywhere

A public figure, or a statement addressing a matter of public concern, has to also address a 5th element of actual malice

If any of the other 4 are missing, the Court never hears about damages

Totally missed the "[described matter]" near the bottom when I first read this

This is why lawyers should always read over the work their paralegals do before signing

Yes, I've been told repeatedly

The fun part about defamation law is that it doesn't matter

First, the Vic team can't prove actual malice – that's why, when you read the lawsuit, there are no facts alleging it. There's 1 conclusory allegation.
Second – if what's in the complaint is representative of these 400 pages of tweets – they're all either protected opinion based on disclosed facts or rhetorical hyperbole
Third, they have to prove the damages were *the direct result of the defamatory statements alone* and not things like entities using Google, or being risk-averse in who they invite, or true statements made by others, etc etc etc
This case is going to lose. Period.

Whether it loses on an anti-SLAPP motion or loses on summary judgment, the end result will be the same.

Their literal only hope is to pray the cost of paying defense attorneys is so high that the defendants settle.
As explained elsewhere in the thread – repeatedly – "malice" and "actual malice" are 2 different legal concepts

Actual malice requires proving the statement was made knowing it was false, or proving it was made with a reckless disregard for the truth

And the Court will never see them if the case doesn't survive to summary judgment

That's why lawyers tend to put them in the initial complaint

Just say you double cuck dare him to respond

It actually worked last night

I definitely will. Just need to remember to @ you as the originator!

First Amendment trumps Texas law

Part of the whole "Supremacy Clause" thing

You're confusing a defense to defamation and a defense to tortious interference with contracts

You're also wrong

Except it's an army of different toddlers all doing it one after the other

We spell it "defense" in America

And yes, truth is always an affirmative defense to defamation here

They can't grasp having to prove falsity, do you think they're going to grok substantial truth? 🤔

He really is just spouting random gibberish at this point

If Vic were serious about salvaging his career, he'd drop the lawsuit and either wait for things to die down or affirmatively make amends

Instead his lawyers are Streisand-ing the hell out of this

Haha yeah, @NotGeauxGabby has been the best promoter my firm has ever had 😊

This sure sounds like you're saying he admitted to touching women without consent

You should probably sit this one out, you're not helping him ❤️

The funny part is watching people go "well why hasn't the anti-SLAPP motion be filed yet??" when the deadline hasn't even passed

Doesn't need to be a crime. Statements that Vic touched people without consent are what he's claiming was defamatory and prompted the civil lawsuit.

You're admitting here that the defendants were right.

If you're trying to help, you're doing terribly

Wake me when you find something the oppo research folks didn't

My degree was in computer science. Used to work in the industry. You think I don't know what info about me is shared and where to find it? 😂

You people must have incredibly small e-peens to be this confident in your skillz
Yes. Letter Carriers v Austin, 418 US 264 (1974). Link here: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

There are a number of other cases in the Circuit Courts of Appeal, but not near my laptop at the moment to pull them
@lupinfan83
And if they were serious, the first 2 things they'd have mentioned were me having a 20yo son to a woman I'm not married to, and being in Chapter 13 bankruptcy

Both have been mentioned on here repeatedly, but at least try to come up with something bad

What parts of Texas law do you think outrank federal law? Enlighten us

You implied I don't know Texas law.

I'm asking you: what part(s) of Texas law do you think outweigh federal law when it comes to defamation cases?

Because I know federal First Amendment law exceptionally well

If the defendants win the anti-SLAPP motion that will almost certainly be filed later this month, the judge orders the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' attorney fees or be held in contempt of court

Yep.

And the more I get @'d, the more I have to reply, which just keeps the original tweet constantly refreshed on the TL thanks to Twitter's new algos

Already told several folks, in this thread and elsewhere: a lot of time in court is spent waiting

Like I said, wake me when you find something new and interesting. Because right now you're really just boring the f*ck out of me

Works out to about 1.8 tweets per hour, considering I've been on Twitter 9+ years

You really got me there champ!

Nah, most of us have other caseloads and then take these as they appear

For example, I typically defend street pharmacists. But when a 1A case comes up (e.g. the Malcolm X raid down in Garner), I'll take it for free

I know what the words mean, but the order you put them in means nothing at all

You should probably Google the Supremacy Clause and the Incorporation Doctrine before speaking next time 😘

I already answered your question, you just don't seem to notice

Highly unlikely. State laws where each act took place would control, most would likely be time-barred by the statute of limitations, etc

I do know the law. It's included at several points in this thread.

I also told you what parts of the United States Constitution that apply: the First Amendment

Seriously, go read up on the Supremacy Clause and the Incorporation Doctrine

It could certainly be offered as evidence at trial, yes

The case has to get to trial first though

Are you a bot?

I answered your question directly: I know the law that's going to apply to this case, which is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Look up the "substantial truth" Doctrine, also known as the "gist" or "sting"

Start with Masson v New Yorker Magazine, 501 US 496 (1991) from the Supreme Court of the United States

Yes. Or a battery, depending on your state

So are you going to join in on the donations when it turns out I'm right?

$100 to a charity of my choice

Mom likely took away the prepaid debit card

Many of them probably are. Hoping Vic or Nick or Ty will notice them and give them some shoulder rubs.

Already talked to them at several points earlier in the thread

Which you'd know, had you read it

Another one with the SuperLawyer jab 😂😂😂

You people slay me

Several of us have given you the Supreme Court cases that apply.

Even more cases are included in the thread.

A statement cannot be defamatory if it's protected by the First Amendment. Regardless of what state law exists saying otherwise.

Winning cases with $1,000,000.00 in damages are typically taken on contingency. Plaintiff pays nothing, lawyer fronts the costs and takes 1/3 of the winnings.

Sounds like you're admitting this case is a loser

Oh dear, you've seen things that are public and have been talked about on here for years now 😱😱😱

Complete with my voting record! 😂

Desperation for what? 😂 I've had you uninformed troglodytes in my @'s for 2 days now, the only thing I'm desperate for is bleach shots for each of you, a gasoline shower, and lots of matches

*trial

What I want doesn't matter. The lawsuit won't survive to trial. Period.

In retrospect, this tweet was uncharitable of me. I officially retract it.

I really just want y'all to bathe.

And maybe get laid? With someone who's not a goat.

Depends on how many teeth they have left

And how firm the goat is

Already told several folks in the thread: most of Court is spent waiting

Thanks for repubbing my GoFundMe though!

Me: "I can't afford health insurance, here's why. Help plz?"

You, an intellectual: "yOu MuSt NoT hAvE mAnY cLiEnTs!"

I've tried *real* hard the past few years to clean up the insults in my repertoire, but some of y'all are so fantastically idiotic it's gonna make me backslide 😞
This tweet is gibberish

I pretty clearly said I was waiting for other cases to get handled so they could get to mine

Do they speak English in What?

Insults are never defamatory. Anywhere.

Please send the lawsuit to:

Law Offices of T Greg Doucette PLLC
311 E Main Street
Durham NC 27701-3717

Good talk 😂
Well no, *you* wouldn't get it. I'd donate $100 to a 501(c)(3) of your choice

I love the carpetbomb-@-and-block technique, it's so much fun!

You're quoting from Miranda warnings

Miranda warnings are for criminal charges, not civil lawsuits

Try again. Do better.

You're not making the point you think you're making

🤣🤣🤣

I figured y'all would be grateful for me pointing out the holes in your case for free

The defendants' lawyers won't be nearly as courteous

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

::breathes::

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂😂😂

(Witty!)

Must be a real bitch getting bullied by legal realities
Oh I did. Even numbered them for you this morning!

You'd have to read rather than reflexively emote to notice though

How many alt accounts have you had to create? 😂 This is at least your 4th, always confirming you don't understand PVI

Your obsession with my genitals is weird. Seek therapy.

That's not how defamation cases work Skippy

Plaintiff has to prove statements were false first

Vastly bigger audience here I'm afraid

Your tears are delicious. Probably a delicacy in some cultures.

In the village of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

Enjoy your rule

Oh sh*t, they found the super-secret @indyweek article shared all over the Triangle 3 years ago 😱😱😱

You've post a bunch of URLs, each of which confirms what I and others have already said elsewhere in this thread

I expected better

So how about you screenshot which ones contradict what we've been saying

It would be a huge own

Are you still crying about this? Figured you'd get tired after yesterday's curbstomping

"WhY dOn'T yOu Go DeBaTe On HiS yOuTuBe ChAnNeL"
BAAAAARBARA STREISAND!
"It's only a joke when the guy I don't like does it!"

I hope @AkivaMCohen is at least getting some more followers out of this 😂
Yes, I did it via Twitter too

Was that supposed to be a revelation?

Are you crying?

It sounds like you're crying

You weren't making the point you thought you were making.

Try again. Do better.

Good to know. Guess I'm gonna have to up the amount if they're paying in rubles ::sigh::

Closed the Charlotte office in 2016

Try to keep up

This doxxing paper tiger is just sad
And I told them that before it started!

Like, the oppo dossier is both more accurate and better polished 😂

Your guess is as good as mine brother

They found my apartment (which I location-tag daily on FB and IG). And they found my office info, which we're told after passing the bar will be public unless we opt out.

It's been total weaksauce

They did, and even realized he was being called Nameless until we decide whether or not to keep him

But totally muffed the dog

Gotta get passed the anti-SLAPP motion and motion to dismiss before then

And the CPAP was paid for about 20 minutes after I asked, been using it for a month now

Gotta have a contract before someone can tortiously interfere with it

You evidently haven't read the lawsuit they filed. Sad.

So when did @TyBeard10, Texas Lawyer, start taking defamation cases? 🤔

Seems like it's a new practice area for them, if their website is any guide
Unreliable courthouse WiFi is the bane of my existence 😂

Assuming the Court allows the amendment now that responsive pleadings have been filed, but yes they could certainly try

(Who acknowledged the complaint is defective and misstated what constitutes actual malice)

But at least he got the basic pre-anti-SLAPP procedure right, so all of Nick's / Ty's ppl should definitely go fellate him
You keep saying variations of this, yet we keep telling you about the "actual court documents" complete with links

I hope you have better attention to detail in law school, b/c yikes

Nope. Spent the day waiting for then winning a trial. Just wrapped eating celebratory cheese fries. Currently relaxing on the couch watching ppl work themselves up into a lather over a guy they don't know.

She/he blocked me awhile ago. Not surprised they're still talking sh*t, but LOL that I can keep the charity drive money when I have y'all donate straight to the charities 😂😂😂

But you're a predator. Especially when you're not f*cking goats.

Actually quite a few Texas lawyers have weighed in throughout this thread

By *pure coincidence,* they all said various versions of "yeah I agree with Greg on this" because I know the law

But stay mad ❤️

Isn't this the lawsuit @Popehat defended? Where James Woods got $0?

You're not making the point you think you're making

Try again. Do better.

And yet you come into my @'s anyway, helping make sure even more people see the thread

A prima facie showing of "clear and specific evidence" beyond what's in the pleadings

How did you pass a bar exam?

Defendants never bear a burden of proof unless they choose to voluntarily assume one by asserting an affirmative defense

And saying under oath at trial "that is false" proves nothing, esp when the case never makes it to trial

Every law school in the country teaches federal law. So yes.

I also told you repeatedly which federal law – the First Amendment – applied to this case.

It's all here in the thread for everyone else to read and decide for themselves.

Almost like they added it in after someone dangled them some GoFundMe money? 🤔

Just finished winning a trial about 3 hours ago, but go awf

Yes! And gives me more awake time for Twitter CHUDs ☺️

They never think these things through before tweeting

I don't want his/her mom's basement anyway though, so nothing worth suing over

Given the intellectual capacity of the ppl in my @'s, I'm not sure that would do any good 😂

F*ckin' delicious, they really hit the spot 🤤

BuT iT sAyS "cOnGrEsS sHaLl MaKe No LaW" aNd TeXaS iSn'T cOnGrEsS

This is a very bland strawman. I've seen better work from kids.

So are you joining in on the charity drive? $100 to a charity of my choice when it turns out I'm right? $100 to a charity of yours if I end up wrong?

"Hiding" on Twitter?

The venue with the bigger audience?

#LOLwut

1️⃣ Yes

2️⃣ "Actual malice" applies to all defamatory statements against public figures and/or on matters of public concern

3️⃣ No

The First Amendment absolutely applies to defamation – if it's protected, it cannot be defamatory

This isn't hard

$100 United States Dollars.

If the case never makes it to trial, you donate it to a 501(c)(3) charity of my choice

If it does make it to trial, I'll donate it to a 501(c)(3) charity of your choice. And if they win at trial, I'll make it $200

Except multiple lawyers have shared with you multiple cases describing the sorts of statements that are First Amendment-protected expression

Among them are opinions, rhetorical hyperbole, anything that is true, etc etc etc

Might wanna check the metrics shared mid-thread

Yes, he's been doing it for hours. Then begs @NickRekieta to RT him.

😂😂😂

This was actually a reference to Student Government drama, but your overactive imagination is appreciated. The full blog post is here: lawdevnull.com/2009/09/deuces/

This is why @MaryOfEire went with the close-crop on the blog post 🤣
Oh no, look at all these things already shared on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter for years now 😱😱😱

Already answered, at least a dozen times at this point, mid-thread

Another lawyer bringing logic into this ::smh::

At least it's a refreshing change of pace from the typical MAGAt trash I get

It's almost like the people who donated actually expect their money to go what they're told it's going to 😱

Fully funded about 20 minutes after it was posted over a month ago. Thanks for asking!

It'd take him and I the same span of time to scroll, then I'd have the extra time of copying, finding the thread tail, and pasting it

They're all getting the same talking points from kiwi farms

They're now going on my law firm Facebook page to comment on a post from a year ago 😂😂😂
I bet someone told them this would be a boss-level reveal 🤣🤣🤣
Depends on how long you soy bois stay in my mentions

Sadly no, I was named after my grandfather and he went by Tommy. I'm T. Greg on everything that doesn't require a full first name

This is pretty accurate description of most of the last 48hrs of @'s tbqh

"something something blackface party yada yada"

That, or Halloween

You can send grievances about the unauthorized practice of law to:

The North Carolina State Bar
ATTN: UPL
217 East Edenton Street
Raleigh NC 27601

Depends on the collective stench of the anime bois

Odd, b/c the actual passerby have already commented on enjoying how streamlined the conversation is

😂😂😂

"I don't understand, therefore you are explaining yourself poorly" is certainly a take

Oh I'm not representing any of them, I didn't know who they were before yesterday

I'm scorched-earth'ing the LOLsuit against them because it's garbage and I enjoy it

I wonder how much fun could be had if I started pretending this was all some grand conspiracy, where I was hired to stir things up on Twitter 🤔
Already @'d him and his buddy several times in the thread

If you were as good at reading as you are at artistry, you'd have noticed

Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

But then, that would require them to think through the logical implications of what they tweet before hitting the "Tweet" button

Hey @BullCityVA, what's the standard in California for whether or not attorney-client privilege attaches to a communication?

LMAO he's doing another one already?

Rent must be due

Does he keep your sack in a mason jar on his shelf for you to be blowing him this thoroughly?

I'm serious 😂 Dude must need to get his metrics up

No. It just means that, if the case makes it to trial (unlikely), the defense would have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the statements were substantially true

After Vic's team first proves, by that same preponderance, that they were false

If the case is dismissed on anti-SLAPP, plain dismissal, or summary judgment, the affirmative defense never comes into play
@KoihimeNakamura
Depends on the contours of the case. The Plaintiff could just testify and hope the jury believes it all. They could call the ppl who said he did it and try to challenge their recollections. They could show some impossibility (being out of town, etc)

There's no "shifting." The Plaintiff always bears the burden of proving their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

If they don't do that – and just saying "that's not true" isn't enough to do that – then the defense never has to prove anything

No, I don't mean that.

They're separate, independent burdens. Nothing "shifts."

Y'all are spending an *immense* amount of mental energy on burden-shifting for a case that won't make it to trial 😂
You do realize that most states use notice pleading, right?

And that it doesn't mean what you think it means?

Wake me when gets 4M impressions in a day

Lots of public defenders among my friends on here, and we all defend alleged felons so no shame 👊

The funny/sad part is I actually offered them some pointers earlier in the thread

They were too busy grunting to notice

Noooo f*cking clue

Doubly weird about law topics, when a huge bulk of law practice is writing motions and briefs supporting those motions

You'd think there'd be more appreciation for the written word

Idk, if he calls me beta cuck soy boi brainlet coward one more time it juuuuust might do the trick

I think the Low T may actually be a new one! 🧐

Probably a good thing YouTube isn't real life then, or I'd really be in trouble

Short version is that it's the minimum quantum of facts you have to put into a complaint to put the Defendant on notice of what's being alleged

State standards vary slightly; federally you'll want to read Bell Atlantic v Twombly and Ashcroft v Iqbal

We've got 3 who've agreed to participate so far, buried somewhere midthread

I wish there was a way to set it up now and hold their money in escrow until it's over 😂

You gonna pony up $100 to charity when it turns out I was right? Got 3 of y'all on board so far

5th Circuit cases were provided by @adamsteinbaugh earlier

Surely you understand that federal case law interpreting the First Amendment is binding on a state defamation lawsuit, right?

Always applicable, regardless of the merits

They're still violating federal law, which is why most weed businesses can't get corporate bank accounts and instead run on cash transactions with large safes

We'll see lol. Depends on how much soy is in my @'s when I wake up

It's not. Insults are never defamatory.

And if @NickRekieta said otherwise, he overpaid for law school.

It would be *hilarious* if they blamed me 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It's only defamation when the people I don't like do it!

Good talk 👍👍
I didn't know he existed before yesterday, so as far as I'm aware all of those things are possible

BuT wHeRe ArE tHe CrImInAl ChArGeS i'M gOnNa SuE

But that would be false and therefore defamatory
#GoPack 🐺🐾🐾

The pets just let me stand up a couple minutes ago 😂 Walking Chance then heading that way

Alright folks, packing it in for the night 👊

To the ISWV ppl who'll be @'ing me: stay mad 😘 More Streisand-ing to come
You cited a case where the trial judge entered a judgment in favor of the defendants – a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, appropriate where the judge could've issued a directed verdict – so the Plaintiffs got $0

And it was upheld on appeal

It's kind of sad, @NickRekieta, because it seems like you actually knew what you were talking about once upon a time
"supposed to not being talked about becoming famous" – like the defects in the LOLsuit?

Think through your tweets next time, you're not good at this

Update on the doxxing job folks!

I'm afraid I have bad news...

They found I drive a Hyundai Elantra 😱
Or, more accurately, I did

It was totaled 3 years ago

High quality doxxing

They spend so much time raging they don't even think to read the opinions or case history

It's been fun, never seen someone get so unhinged over garbage legal analysis that they felt compelled to devote 2 entire nights of their livestream to me

Congratulations on finding a campaign website from 3 years ago, while replying to a guy who completely botched the legal analysis of the case he was tweeting to own me

You seem awfully concerned about me tweeting if this is such a waste of time

Except it's not, so even with "context" he's still wrong

A point he understood back in January, but doesn't now for some reason

No, it's not. It's rhetorical hyperbole and protected by the First Amendment.

Which is really bizarre, given the sh*t they say daily about other people

Already @'d Ty a few times mid-thread, including wondering why he didn't have defamation among his law firm's practice areas until this suit and you chucklef*cks bankrolling him

He doesn't want to be on record here, for obvious reasons

Nick is in Minnesota, so even less informed than the typical LOLyer-who-doesn't-do-First-Amendment-law

I was busy winning a trial while tweeting at you CHUDs during the downtime

That was already mentioned a few times mid-thread, if you'd stop f*cking that goat long enough to read

Scroll up. @'d Nick and Ty both, which should be apparent because Nick's TL has basically become a Twitter shrine to me these past couple days

When he's not building me another one on his livestream of course

But when do I get the set of steak knives?

A link to the conclusion of the story on the YUUUUUGE verdict that @NickRekieta spent his morning threading together

TL;DR version: the defendants won

It's a setup though because we're all SuperLawyers and coordinate our responses in the members-only SuperLawyers forums

Defendants routinely win cases with zero evidence.

Because the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff.

This is a really basic concept.

YUUUUUUUGE verdict!

So yuge, the Plaintiffs had to pay money to the Defendants!

What is this "fellow lawyer" gibberish?

Our initial interaction was him diving in to call me an idiot, when he was never mentioned at all – because, you know, he's not actually representing anyone in the case

He's been increasingly unhinged since

"Whyyyyyy won't you talk with my senpai about all the things you've explained to him here are wrong with this case??"

Y'all sound pathetic. Grow a set.
Game over. Multi-million dollar verdict for sure.

This doesn't make the point you think it makes.

Try again. Do better.

Tbh I'm impressed they all got aboard this argument

Never thinking what would happen when the Defendants then said "no, it's not false" and NOW WHAT

We actually keep them archived for posterity 😂 Go here: twitter.com/search?q=witty…

Are you aware that "protected" (what you said) and "applies" (what I said) are two different words?

And that they mean different things?

Yes. No one claimed it was.

We said the First Amendment applies to defamation, which it does. If it's protected speech, it can't be defamatory.

So, back to my question: you realize "applies" and "protected by" mean different things?

They think saying it repeatedly will make it more true.

Or less humiliating for them, idk

Yeah, quite a few of you ISWV clowns have blocked me already. We included those mid-thread too, it's amusing

It's not a "word game," you syphilitic inbred goatf*cker

Rhetorical hyperbole like that – insults – are protected by the First Amendment and by definition cannot be defamatory

The self-proclaimed First Amendment LOLyer did a thread on a defamation case in Texas that ended with the Plaintiff paying money to the Defendants

He will never be humbled, because he's too busy emoting in ALL CAPS RAGE to ponder the concept

Not getting personal at all. Just telling you that rhetorical hyperbole cannot be defamation.

Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974). Google it.

Before or after the explainer on basic sanitation?

Good! I won't remember who you are, but I'll ask someone else to say "I told you so" when he loses

That is a *terrible* way to cure insomnia! 😂

That's the one!

Quite a few @fsckemall episodes also include lawsplainers on different topics. They'll be listed in the show notes

Credibility decisions get made by the jury if a case ever makes it to trial

In my experience, though, "scorned lovers" tend to be damning witnesses

The brainlet who posted a review on my law firm's FB page to insist I was never in Mensa is now bragging that he's got a 99.9% IQ

(-‸ლ)
You boys sure are triggered
Now he's on the "you were *never* a scientist if you weren't published! I have papers in the GT library!"

I'm eternally grateful for having friends who never let me become this insufferable

Yep

As part of the kiwi farms doxxing effort, someone pointed out we teased Ty Beard (Vic's LOLyer) for listing Mensa on his website

I mentioned that I was a member, and didn't promote it

So this brainlet checked the directory and thought I'd be owned

I was really impressed he put together a thread on that YUUUUUUGE defamation verdict case

Then I Googled it. And saw the Plaintiffs had to pay the Defendants b/c the Defendants won.

Big part of why I didn't go to the events. Raging insecurity.

He'll give them a shoutout in his next VA job, or invite them to his mansion to get blown by prostitutes, or something

I'll wager $100 USD there will be a TCPA motion within the deadline. Discovery will be ongoing after it.

But what if they're in Mensa *and* ISPE, huh smart lady???

And worked in industry before realizing I hated it, but yes lol

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The entertaining part is he goes on about how much better his university is ranked. But my grad class prof was his prof at GT.

[Citation needed]

And try to pick a case where the Plaintiff actually wins this time?

True or false: the Plaintiff ended up having to pay money to the Defendants in that case?

I do give @NickRekieta credit on one thing: he flits from point to point to point better than a crack-addled goldfish

We've gone from notice pleading to burdens of proof to whether insults are defamatory to now backpedaling on the YUUUUUGE $0 case he did a thread about
Indeed 😂

I'm actually impressed that *this many people* are spending *this much time* on it

I know the goats are thankful for the break

Let us know when they hit you with the Super Lawyer insult, we've got a betting pool

I didn't know what it was until they sent me a letter that I was named a "Rising Star" 😂

And yet you're still here, days later, hitting refresh obsessively

It's not even arguing really. Arguing implies there's at least degree of rational thought

Same! It used to say "ex-developer" but ppl kept assuming I built houses, so I changed it

Crowdsourced talking points, that aren't even *good*

Already read them. People are going to have fun learning about the justification defense and that exercising one's own legal rights (like dickering over terms of convention sponsorship) isn't tortious interference

Are you crying?

It sounds like you're crying

::whispering:: Me wasting your time is the point

Gotta set up the GoFundMe for $200K in legal fees first, trust me on this

This is the most fun I've had all week tbh (aside from Friday's trial win)

The self-assuredness in the face of getting curbstomped – complete with totally losing composure on a livestream – is funny af

I *do* apologize to all my followers who've had their TLs flooded the past 2.5 days though

Y'all didn't sign up for this and I'll post something more festive when it dies down
Kudos to whoever spent hours of their time doing the Photoshop though 😂

I know the goat is thankful
Generally, yes. There is one in the complaint (the one about having "insider knowledge") that's borderline and might be actionable.

I don't know whether it was justified or not

I do know it wasn't tortious intereference, and my remedy would be to complain about it publicly rather than file a LOLsuit

Until he loses the case, at which point everyone who criticized him before will do it 2x as much

But ppl do love their Pyrrhic victories, so good for him paying bills in the interim

I appreciate it! We felt good going in, but you never know in the crim world

You tweet this, and all I see is "Nick and Ty are laying the groundwork so we don't feel cheated out of that $200K when they lose"

It's called expectation-setting. You're being rolled and don't realize it.

I've handled hundreds of pro bono cases over the years

We crowdsourced a couple thousand to cover the filing fees for... 1?

You kiwi goobers really think you got me there 😂

They're referring to this case, btw

From which I'm not getting any of the money, unlike Nick and Ty

Wait, did Vic actually sign on to this statement??

Yiiiiikes 😂😂😂

Idk what Texas calls those, but here we call them party admissions
Ooof

Smart play if he wasn't going to file the LOLsuit

Idiotic play now that he has

Sounds like you need to get your weight up

Yep

Wouldn't be surprised to see it included in either the TCPA briefing or a motion for summary judgment later

No. Oliviera was SCOTUS interpreting a statute (the Federal Arbitration Act). There's no statute here, it's decades of past case law explaining the contours of the First Amendment

If Congress wanted to enact a statute defining a "public figure," then it might matter whenever that happens. The question would be whether the statutory definition was unconstitutional.
@coffee_ninja
Certainly possible

I hope their malpractice insurance is paid up if so

Scrolling through the dumpster fire of @'s and saw this tangent and holy sh*t 🤣

Only if they get to pick and choose who it applies to though

Because what they think OUGHT to happen would bury most of their saviors if it were actual law

Certainly possible. That may also be why they wanted to arrange depositions before the anti-SLAPP filing deadline

The burden of proof is always on the Plaintiff

If they don't present enough evidence to meet that burden, the Defendants win automatically before they'd have to prove anything at all

So you've had to deal with these inbreds too eh?

Oh dear, my credibility is waning with the DerpNumbers crowd

Clearly I'll have to go kill myself now to recover from the shame

They must be taking their afternoon naps, b/c the quantum of masturbating in my @'s has declined noticeably

Another one with the Hyundai burn y'all!

They really doxxed the f*ck out of me

Yes. It's those subsequent appeals that led to the definition of "public figure" expanding beyond just public officials, and also to encompassing statements on matters of public concern even when the person defamed is entirely private

Maybe 😂

Or maybe they realized this was all a deliberate conspiracy to divert their attention... 🤔

Are you referring to the text messages with the con organizer?

The one where Toye is exercising his independent legal right to negotiate the terms of whether he'd sponsor the con?

"They absolutely believed that claim"

Meaning... there was no actual malice

Meaning the LOLsuit fails

No. The decades-long trend in defamation law is to find that an ever-growing variety of statements constitute First Amendment-protected speech.

The Roberts SCOTUS has been particularly 1A-protective

Supremacy Clause + Incorporation Doctrine

Try again. Do better.

Protected statements can't be defamatory or tortious

Doubt it. The $$'s already in whatever account Nick / Ty / etc are holding it in (assuming they haven't spent it already)

Statements that are legally privileged – the "rooted in independent legal right" meaning of "privileged" – can't be tortious

Not really, considering I'm just the sponsor of the 2 attorneys appearing pro hac vice in that case. I don't do labor law

Was this another kiwi "find"? 😂

How are you people so bad at this?
Please tell me when you find out the answer, because damn

It'd certainly explain why it wasn't on the list of practice areas for his law firm in late 2018

You are aware that federal constitutional law governs state court lawsuits, yes?

They'd have to read the tweets to see that though, and no one reads the tweets because Twitter is garbage and all the real people watch Twitch streams and etc

Yes, that's the case. You'll notice 2 of the lawyers are in Illinois. They do labor law. I don't.

The doxxing folks. They've been at it for days now and it's just been a parade of lulz

I assumed they were ppl, though in retrospect I realize that may be defamatory toward the rest of you 😉

Ah, the tweets that were rhetorical hyperbole, statements of opinion based on disclosed facts, etc etc

Yeah, they've been shared too

"Something something nullification! durka durka"

They're linked throughout the thread

You managed to find that tweet, you should scroll and read the rest

I can, and already have

And even provided everyone with the starting point for case law on rhetorical hyperbole 😱

Just make sure the canon stays true to history when this case loses

"They're linked throughout the thread

You managed to find that tweet, you should scroll and read the rest"

Still bound by federal court decisions interpreting the First Amendment

Because the Constitution contains a Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment provides the Incorporation Doctrine

This is elementary school civics

I'm confused, I don't see an answer on when I get the steak knives

This is hard work and I demand compensation

I'm not dodging anything. If I called you a kiddy-diddling pedobear on Twitter, it's not defamatory even though I've accused you of a crime

Again, this is basic stuff

I've talked to them both right here

Why do you think Nick's been having an aneurysm the past few days?

If you didn't find any, you should probably re-read b/c they're still curbstomping your buddies as I tweet

This was already covered yesterday, including a link to the blog post and the "UNCASG" tag at the bottom

I don't know what you think happens in Student Government meetings, but certainly sounds like you should seek therapy for it

Oh I know he didn't. Quite a few of them have done this in some form or another, asking a question that's already been answered and then going "but show me!" when I tell them to read the thread

Would definitely be faster if you just read the thread

Computer science background means I can type quickly

And no, I don't have clients on Saturdays

You don't understand, I got totally OWNED on a Twitch stream or something

Because he has a dank YouTube channel with 60K very special people subscribing

Who's dodging the question?

I already said, repeatedly, that I prefer doing it here where there's a vastly bigger audience

Admittedly the number of inbreds in my @'s is down a bit today. They must be busy.
Except all that stuff has been included mid-thread, you were just insufficiently literate to notice 😘

Your goat's calling btw

It's a streaming platform, predominantly used by gamers to livestream as they play

I mostly represent drug dealers. They're not really on Twitter like that for me to be "gritting for lawsuits," and the defamation lawsuits I defend are done for free.

You're really bad at this

They can file a LOLsuit but they'll lose

Media companies tend to be even better-defended than individuals

If Nick/Ty were smart, they would have filed a series of one-off defamation claims against individual defendants, ground them each into the dirt, and moved on to the next one

Instead, they did a "LOL let's sue everybody so they can pool their resources!" approach

@MarzGurl
LOLsuit was being used back in the BBS / Usenet days. You'd know that if you'd read the thread.

Your goat is getting agitated you're not back yet btw

"Having trouble finding it"? 😂😂

You're in the thread right now. It's literally all 1 singular thread. Right here. Scroll up to the top.

Sure sounds like a confession that you're a bunch of f*ckin morons

Trust me, my followers know *exactly* what's going on

We call tweets like this "Dunning-Kruger"

Can y'all smell the desperation in those tweets btw?

"You've been totally owned and boned. No one believes you. Please stop talking now? ::begs::"
This was already addressed mid-thread. You do realize filing lawsuits costs money to the court, yes?

Not getting paid != going into the hole paying the court costs

The goat's still waiting...

There are a few options. Provide evidence he wasn't there or X wasn't there, or depose X and challenge X's credibility (history of lying, etc), or provide evidence X is lying (emails, texts, etc), or get on the stand to say "that's false" and pray

They're too dim to realize ppl find out about the GFMs *because* they were shared on Twitter

BUT IT'S SO MUCH FUN!

I'm legit wondering how many aneurysms I can induce with these CHUDs

Are those... tears?

Definitely looks like tears

No, I'm getting paid in Super Lawyer megabux as part of a deal I negotiated on the forums

Yep. He's not getting any money. He just wants the judgment to wave around.

But he's not going to get that either

It really depends. Any competent attorney will find out about stuff like that if it's their own client's conviction, and try to manage the fallout (called "taking out the sting") by having them talk about it preemptively before cross-examination

1/
A fraud conviction is considered a "crime of moral turpitude," and is almost admissible to attack ("impeach") a witness's credibility

So lawyers will manage that on the front end as much as possible

2/
@mr_random_guy14
For example, my clients rarely take the stand. But when they do, if they've got felonies for crimes of moral turpitude, I'll have them explain to judge/jury how *this* testimony should be believable even though they have a history of lying

3/
@mr_random_guy14
Prosecutors do the same with jailhouse snitches. They'll tell the jury "you can't catch the devil with angels" and similar insufferable phrases, to argue that past convictions should be ignored this one time

4/4
@mr_random_guy14
This tweet should have said "almost *always* admissible"

Very rare circumstances when convictions for crimes of moral turpitude don't come in

@Mr_random_guy14

It's weird b/c you tweeted this to me, yet @NickRekieta said the same thing

He is. It's apparent that his knowledge of defamation law is not as robust as he desperately wants people to believe

Him and Ty are peas in a pod really

Hate to break it to you, but I had "Twitter clout" yeeeaaarrss ago

It's part of why I take such fun in mocking you, b/c you think you're edgy and new but you're really just recycling the same sh*t that's been in my @'s since 2016 😘

Ooohhh an anti-SLAPP motion in California would be *extra* fun!

Sounds like cowardice to me

I don't threaten the people my clients sue, we just let the Sheriff show up on their doorstep with it

Except they are. Opinions aren't defamatory.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

Nah. If he wants to talk, he can do it here where folks can see it and share it.

The pedobear tendencies with these people are apparent

It did. Several Texas lawyers concluded that none of the alleged statements were tortious (and of course I agree)

You should stop f*cking that goat. He's tired.

Are you crying?

Because it looks like you're crying

Grow a set

Accurate

The federal circuit court decisions have laid out assorted ways of distinguishing fact from opinion, but the weight leans heavily toward opinions and free speech

Sadly the number of Waifu Warriors in my @'s has dropped off precipitously, so I'm gonna go watch some TV or something I guess 😔
🙃
Bunch of folks have been dissecting a LOLsuit, and the LOLyers behind it have been losing their minds b/c it's getting more attention on here than on their YouTube channel where they can control the narrative

Cat is good :) he's currently sleeping

Indeed. Though I'm sure they'll sprout back up, they remind me of roaches

Oooohhhh I hadn't considered that, touché

So you don't have confirmation. Good to know.

Lots of sockpuppets. Presumably some are people.

It did, but the end effect was most state courts recognizing an explicit "opinion privilege." Milkovich rejected the idea there was an explicit privilege, but subsequent circuit rulings have functionally created one (even though it's not called it)

I see a lot of words. But no confirmation of a 189 IQ.

You've been going hard with the SCOTUS cases 🤣

No, HTML would be </sarcasm>

189 IQ would know that

Raging insecurity

And a lack of affection from non-livestock

The ones who whine about being trolled and then block us are the best

You're definitely crying. We can all see it, that's what makes it so entertaining.

Highly pleased someone else uses chucklefuck

Waaaaayyyy overestimating the quality here Tim

I'm about as far removed from the anime world as you can get, and when my friends already knew about this years ago...

...we call that "reputation in the community" evidence, and it's pretty damning in defamation cases
Someone even compiled a Twitter Moment of ppl's experiences

twitter.com/i/moments/1093…
Of course, I didn't know any of that background when I chimed in

Because I didn't have to

Because I know First Amendment law, and I recognize defective ass pleadings when I see them 😂
"*I* don't have a bad comprehension of the law that I'm using to grift thousands of dollars from easy marks, all of *you* have a bad comprehension of the law that you're using to gri... uhh... well... to chase clout!"

OK Screech 😂

It's an "award" that a bunch of lawyers get for free, so the company doing it can then try to sell you things like plaques and "memberships" and such

VicStans and KiwiFarms goobers think you have to pay to have it, they run super-secret chatrooms, etc

While we're on the topic of compiling background info, I have the texts from @RonToye that form the basis of Vic's tortious interference with contract / business prospects claims

I suspect if people look, they'll discover @TyBeard10 leaked these to @NickRekieta for his show
I highlighted the dates in the last screenshot on that prior tweet to highlight the time gap

It confirms the convention contacted @RonToye, rather than Ron going out of his way to torpedo Vic's invite
Here are the next 4 bundles of messages in the sequence
These texts are all part of discovery in the case btw

Here are the next 4
And the last batch

I suspect a court will find these fall under a combination of "truth" and "justification" – that @RonToye was exercising his independent legal right to negotiate over sponsorship terms – and therefore not defamation / TIC / TIBP
The fact they're not problematic is why they were leaked to @NickRekieta, so Nick could then selectively parse to make them look much more scandalous

So Nick and Ty could then grift more money from the fans
The fun part about civil conspiracy is that it's not a standalone tort

I can't sue you for conspiracy and that's it

So if the defamation / TIC / TIBP claims fall, civil conspiracy automatically goes bye bye *even if* there was an actual conspiracy

This is false

Thanks for playing though!

They may have more, but I doubt it. This is a classic case of "lawfare" – filing a totally meritless lawsuit, then sending a sh*tload of data preservation notices and subpoenas to people, hoping you find something you can use for character assassination

With the end goal of making the defendants' lives so miserable they beg to pay you money to make it stop
@MichaelToole
Gotta go to back-to-back meetings, but y'all really should call and ask @TyBeard10 why he's intentionally leaking subpoenaed info to a YouTube celebrity 🙃

Bingo

And when it's spread around like this, it becomes reputation evidence that's admissible in court

*In addition* to all the times hearsay is directly admissible

These people like @DanielMalice9 aren't any smarter in the DMs

(-‸ლ)
I 👏 deserve 👏 better 👏 enemies 👏
Quite well! I especially enjoy your heroes losing their minds now that they know their gravy train is ending soon 😘

I once waited 7 years for the perfect time to ruin a guy's day, because he'd crossed me once and never made amends

I hold grudges and have poor impulse control 🙃

Correction: it was only 5 years

The years get jumbled over time 😂
Actually we've talked about it quite a bit, right here in this very thread

It just happens most of the ways for doing so aren't options

Most likely because he did it

Tack on "but hooooowwwww can he prove falsity?!!1" to the list

It's exceptionally petty, so it'll have to wait for the perfect time

Suffice to say it was a Student Government-related grievance, thoroughly documented at the time, and the documentation was resurfaced when it would have maximum impact

It will never sink in

We live in a society where people are convinced you can win a lawsuit over anything

"Double cuck dare" will forever live in my lexicon now

Shoutout to @StoneyDad420!

We have a saying in the south, "a hit dog hollers"

Daniel is very offended someone is poking fun at his bestiality fetish

The sad part is they're pathetically bad at it

But they did successfully find the car I drove 3 years ago (and talked about on here) and the dog I had 2 years (and talked about on here) and the GFM from a few months ago (that I talked about on here)!

They've been more successful with more-private figures, for obvious reasons

But ELL OH ELL that these f*cking goobers think they're accomplishing anything with me 😂
By pure coincidence, same outcome in NC for same reasons

They're incels. They blame women for not fellating them on command, and since women are the victims here they have to go all-in stanning the molester

Typical delta male sh*t really. Even the betas aren't that sad.

I don't know if it's worth labeling him a sexual predator or not; I haven't talked with his rather long list of targets

I do know, with absolute certainty backed understanding the law, that he's going to lose this bumptious LOLsuit

A "debate" implies one of the two sides has a possibility of winning

Vic / Nick / Ty do not

I'm just making sure *lots* of people learn that vs the comparative handfuls of ppl watching a YouTube show 🙃

Mine either 😂 Part of why I haven't had a real website in 7 years of practice

Especially when they're getting curbstomped so thoroughly in a different venue that you end up living rent-free in the loudest one's head while his delta bros beg you to stop talking

They've been hyperventilating so hard you can almost smell the gingivitis through the app

1️⃣ Start here: io9.gizmodo.com/one-of-anime-s…

2️⃣ 2 LOLyers who don't understand defamation law convinced this guy to file a LOLsuit

3️⃣ They then spent months harassing the victims and encouraging a bunch of speds to dox them

4️⃣ Libelslander Twitter found out

The fun part about putting all this info out on Twitter for everyone to see is that they can scroll up and notice you're wrong

There was a 10-day lack of communication, then the con reached out, then Vic's name was mentioned for the first time

I'm partial to whiskey, but I'll look forward to it regardless 👊

If the March 2019 ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals in Goughnour v. Patterson is any indication, Percy's law firm is already accustomed to getting sanctioned

I mean yikes, Percy

leagle.com/decision/intxc…
They quite literally never think these things through before tweeting them

I realize you think you've got a winner here, but calling grifters "grifters" isn't defamatory

Remember how I talked about the "justification" defense earlier?

It's not tortious interference if the comments are justified

Read Prudential Ins Co of Am v Fin Review Servs Inc, 29 SW3d 74, 80 (Tex 2000)

Turns out @RonToye had an independent legal right to negotiate over convention sponsorship terms

For those interested in reading what the Texas Supreme Court has to say when that happens, the link is here: courtlistener.com/opinion/147313…

Here's an excerpt you should enjoy:
I realize you LOLyer fans think Texas is some weird island where basic legal concepts that apply in all the other 49 states don't exist...

...but (surprise!) you're quite wrong
They did. Along with something like 37ish other grounds for appeal on the underlying case.

Actually true. And probably Delaware.

Probably not, but that's a question better geared toward Personal Injury Twitter. In NC, an independent act by another adult would be treated as what's called a "supervening" cause of the tort; the guy who did it could be liable, but not who asked for it

Doubtful. State laws tend to be way behind current issues, and certain stuff (compiling dossiers of publicly available info) would be protected by the First Amendment

When it crosses into actual stalking, some states' laws can help

Except those comments weren't defamatory, as has been repeatedly explained ad nauseum by at least a dozen or so lawyers now, so that section doesn't say what you think it says

1️⃣ What do you think "defamation per se" means?

2️⃣ How about "actual malice"?

Just make sure not to delete this when it turns out I'm right, b/c I'll have already forgotten you and will need someone else to send the "told ya"

Gotta talk about a winning defamation case to keep the money rolling in 😂

Props for transparency I guess? 🤣🤣🤣

It's SovCit-esque. Good chunk of these people probably go on about gold fringe on the flag

I'm guessing you never read Rule 405 in the Texas Rules of Evidence

For anyone else who wants to read Rule 405: txcourts.gov/media/921665/t…

You'll be shocked (shocked!) to discover it's almost identical to the Federal Rule of Evidence 405 😱
I mean you've already spent the past few nights talking about me, you and Percy doing the same again was always inevitable

Let me know where I need to send the rent payment for living in your head btw

(Also notice @NickRekieta's tweet isn't a denial either 😂 Dude's terrified of losing his gravy train)
He's not. That's similar to our very first interactions, before he backtracked to ask me to come on his show, then spazzing out again when I ignored him.

He chose this path. So be it.

You're not wrong at all, it definitely does!

Here's the Texas Rule of Evidence 803 (21) on hearsay exceptions about character / reputation

Y'all will be shocked (shocked!) to know this is verbatim-identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(21) 😱

txcourts.gov/media/921665/t…
I don't begrudge the man his YouTube money. It's hard enough putting podcast episodes together, I can only imagine what goes into a TV show.

I just wish he was more competent about what he discussed so his viewers weren't misinformed about reality

Look, I get it: you can't get laid so you prefer the pedobear approach, which means you have to defend when a middle-aged man sticks his hands up a 14yo's jacket

It's gross, but at least you're honest about it

I like how you responded about subsection 2 while totally skipping over subsection 1

Like they weren't both in the exact same picture for everyone else to see

You're *really* bad at this

So that you could read the entirety of the Rule?

Or are you one of those people who *prefer* being misled by having things cut out? 😂

Stops them from focusing their attention elsewhere 😉

I'm personally enjoying the game of whack-a-troll

Let me know when your senpai manages to do an entire show without mentioning me 😘

Not sure these people are smart enough to realize that Vic doesn't get to testify unless he also opens himself up to cross-examination

Nah, I pay my rent with money from actual clients

As lawyers do

It would be a terrible idea, but he's not gonna have a choice now

The defense will almost certainly compel his deposition under oath, preferably with a videographer

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
I especially like when the habitual clout-chaser starts crying at how many notifications he's getting, and starts screenshotting the tweets so he doesn't accidentally send more people to the thread where his and his buddy's legal arguments get dismantled

Nah, the Patreon money pays my sound guy who handles the audio production

Some of us have minimum standards of quality. I realize as a Nick / Ty fan you probably don't understand what that means 😘

You forgot the cackling

Lots of cackling

Certainly possible. Let me check the stats 😂

You may very well be right, @FMcQueen31 😱
There's some overlap in those things

Plaintiff's have to prove that what was said was/is an objectively verifiable statement of fact (so not opinion), and that it was false, and that it was made with "actual malice"

1/
"Actual malice" is different than "malice" as commonly understood

It means the statement was made either 1️⃣ while knowing it was false or 2️⃣ with a reckless disregard for its truth (i.e. said even though there was lots of evidence it was false)

2/
@a_hungry_fool
Whether it was protected by the First Amendment is rolled up into whether it was/is an objectively verifiable statement of fact

3/
@a_hungry_fool
If – and only if – the Plaintiff proves all those things (plus that the statements were "published" and damaged his rep, which I'm taking as a given), then the Defendants will have a chance to argue the statements were true

4/
@a_hungry_fool
At any point in that process, if any piece is missing – it wasn't a statement of fact, or he can't prove it was false, or he can't prove actual malice, or Defendants can prove it was true – Defendants win

5/5
@a_hungry_fool
Gotta be thousands of you factor in here plus Instagram plus Facebook

Welcome back, sorry for the dumpster fire 😂

Not that I'm aware of, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time

Luckily street pharmacists don't pick their lawyers on YouTube

You'll notice my podcast site doesn't have a way for anyone to give me money

You're terrible at this

I do appreciate the reminder to update the .htaccess file I guess
Indeed 😂

(Ironically enough we do have guests on occasion, including several lawyers. They're just not imbeciles.)

Off somewhere f*cking his goat I'd imagine

It's both.

Plaintiff goes first in presenting evidence, so he/she has to figure out what to present that would convince a judge / jury of falsity

If he/she accomplishes that, Defendant gets to present different evidence proving truth

1/
And "truth" is a bit of a misnomer from the standpoint of the defense, because in reality they only have to prove "substantial" truth – meaning that the "gist" or "sting" of the statement is true, even if everything isn't 100% right in the particulars

2/2
@c_hawisher
Exactly

(Assuming the case ever makes it to trial, which in *this* case is unlikely)

Whether a statement is protected by the First Amendment – opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, etc – is a question of law for the judge, reviewed de novo on appeal

The law itself is pretty well settled, but the sheer variety of potential statements means there's always new stuff to fight about

General rule is that things are rarely ever defamatory. It's like RICO – not never, but pretty close.

Same reason I coach trial team students, keeps my rules of Evidence knowledge fresh 😂

Your obsession with my genitals is creepy

I'm not surprised you're a Vic / Nick / Ty fan

Seek therapy

And I doubt they can fix theirs as quickly as I fixed mine 😂

Are you... crying?

Because it looks like you're crying

Not many are

It has to be an objectively-verifiable statement of fact, understood to be such a statement by a reasonable person considering the context in which it was made

So someone saying "Bob molested 4yo Sallie Sue" in a business meeting could potentially qualify as defamatory

"Bob's a child molester!" on Twitter would not

2/2
@Wozrop
Correct, that wouldn't be defamatory

It does shed some light on your fantasies though, and ewwww

I'm sure in theory something could be so specific as to be potentially actionable, but Twitter – and most social media generally – is widely known for rhetorical hyperbole so the bar to reach an actionable statement is much higher

You've @'d me 17x in about 20 minutes. This is my... 3rd response?

You may need to re-assess who's got the hots for who

I also save a sh*tload of money on not needing a barber

He does. While touting his publications at the GT Library that no one can find

By that math, my grad-level paper on privacy technology and the law should qualify too then

I could respond publicly

But I wouldn't be able to win a lawsuit over it

It was an aspirational tweet apparently. Pretty clear he/she wants me IMO

James Woods got $0

@Popehat was the defense lawyer on that case

They're still going over here. The others are likely getting some last minute goat-f*cking in before watching Screech's LOLyer show tonight

The "pedo guy" tweet isn't why the case was allowed to proceed. It was the separate, very-detailed email he sent to BuzzFeed

Here's the statement the Judge found was potentially defamatory, @12StringRoofer

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
You're 4 days late. All the relevant facts are in the thread.

Cry about it.

I personally hope he goes with the ones who are going to lose

It will make his tears taste that much better

We're currently in mid-season hiatus, but many of the old eps have lawsplainers on different topics so still stuff worth hearing

Ronica doesn't have to prove her affirmative defense if Vic can't first prove falsity

That's already been addressed in the thread, several times

Cry about it

It's a trick, this is the thread that never ends 🙃

Except I have

At least three separate times, all in the very same thread you're currently in

Cry about it

He's his own worst enemy. It's sad b/c SpaceX and Tesla do some impressive innovation

I represent street pharmacists; they're not on Twitter.

And "cry about it" isn't an insult.

Cry about it.

I also do a lot of business litigation 😉 I'm one of fairly few lawyers who are regularly in both criminal and civil courts

Right now some of my biggest successes have been getting street pharmacists to go legit

It still exists: the people being sued are innocent, until Vic proves them liable for defamation

I can't tell if you're triggered or not. Your tears are obscuring my view.

This guy was definitely triggered though 😂😂
I'll chase an ambulance once you figure out that "malice" and "actual malice" are different things

Oh I'm definitely letting Vic's firm earn this L he'll be taking, don't worry

Day 4's been fun y'all, but sadly I need sleep so I can be at 9am calendar call

Y'all let me know how much Screech and Percy talk about me on their show tonight 🙃
The podcast is on mid-season break, that's why you notice I haven't promoted it

I'm here because I greatly enjoy pissing off CHUDs and trashing bumptious LOLsuits

Sounds like you didn't actually read through the thread, and need to read it again

It's one of the highlights of the everything-in-one-thread approach. Very easy for everyone to read, with everything here for folks to see for themselves.

More confirmation that Percy didn't do defamation law until Nick had the Vic grift set up for them

No one took the bet, all of you knew better 😒

So you wasted 35 minutes you could have spent on more useful pursuits?

Certainly sounds to me like that means the plan is working...

This is high-end work for them though. Idk if brainlets can do GIFs

Tremendous amount of sockpuppetry

Quite sad

Don't really care about their rationale. Just enjoying knowing Screech can't go a whole show without bringing me up 🥰

Certainly explains why Percy f*cked it up so thoroughly

It's because they think I'm joking 😂 One of them actually tweeted somewhere that everyone else always said the same thing but eventually changed their tune...

...never realizing I've been doing this for 3.25 years now? Longer?

More accurate than my version, agreed

If my @'s are any indication, this'll be going on for a bit. Glad you're enjoying it! 👊

Already covered throughout the thread.

You should read it.

1️⃣ Multiple women disclose they were molested by anime voice actor

2️⃣ VA apologizes

3️⃣ Two LOLyer-grifters convince VA to file a bogus libelslander lawsuit instead

4️⃣ Libelslander Twitter tears it apart

5️⃣ These kids cry about their hurt fee-fees

The goats just don't provide the same satisfaction as a real human touch

I'm trying to convince them to give the goats a break, they're worn out

Rachel McAdams is a great actress though so I'll take it as a compliment 👍👍
At this point it's mostly just to deliberately waste their time

And cackle

There's been *lots* of cackling Bärí 😂

Doesn't matter if he meant it or not, the fact he said it is evidence the claims are substantially true and the "damages" he suffered in the lawsuit were the result of his reputation and not interference

Of course Screech didn't know that

It also means the allegations were sufficiently known that they'd become a matter of public concern

Requiring affirmative proof by Vic of actual malice, even if he weren't a public figure

@shane_holmberg
Percy really screwed the pooch on this one 😂 Good thing he got paid up-front
I'm just impressed by the sheer quantum of ppl who can say almost the exact same thing

Their messaging discipline rivals the best politicians

This sort of imbecility is why @RadioFreeTom wrote a book
No offense taken, the caliber of the @'s is definitely comparable

(-‸ლ)

If Percy wrote that statement for him, I'd be looking into a malpractice claim. That's a pretty bad admission on multiple fronts.

Explains why the goats are so exhausted though

Correct. Wouldn't be interference with someone else's contract, and wouldn't be breach of their own

Witty!

I do so hope you're still here for the "told ya so" tweets after he loses

Idk if they want to go to court or not, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they want to build the evidentiary record

It would provide an easy future reference point whenever Vic tried to rebuild his career

They don't think these things through Kate! You're trying to divine logic in the written equivalent of grunts

They're currently handling other cases; meanwhile my prep work was done last week, because I knew I was going to have a trial between then and now (not guilty on Friday)

You seem unfamiliar with how courts work

bEiNg On TwItTeR iS dEfInItElY tHe PrIoRiTy

Your last sentence is actually true

Maybe we're making progress after all

We also have a lot more viewers here than he has on his livestream

Perk of retweets ☺️

What part of "they're currently handling other cases" was confusing to you?

Do you speak English?

For everyone else partaking in this now-on-Day-5 game of Whack-A-Troll, here's a helpful excerpt of how Texas law defines "actual malice" for y'all to link to because we all know it's going to get brought up again

1️⃣ Did you look up what "actual malice" means?

2️⃣ Which paragraph number(s) in the lawsuit allege facts that you think satisfy the actual malice standard?

Let me know, and I'll explain

Federal court for me. Don't bring my laptop either.

It's boring as f*ck

Exactly how I spent my first 2-3 years of practice

Are those... tears?

They look like tears

In their defense, the no-contact orders tend to get handled faster than everything else

I legitimately smiled

It makes me wonder how many of these people would actually be enjoyable human beings if they had friends
Depends on what you mean by "sue"

Can you pay a LOLyer enough money to physically file the lawsuit? Sure

Will you win? No

Will you end up having to pay the Defendant's attorney's fees too? Probably

And he doesn't see the disconnect between "he shut up real quick" and Screech + Percy talking about me on 3 consecutive live-streams

The series of LOTR references here is A+++

They'll say the judge is a SJW beta cuck soy boi, and move on to the next controversy

Same approach that will be taken by the LOLyers

It's a sockpuppet account run by a dude, trying to convince everyone he's a woman, thinking that if he uses the right lingo they'll be convinced and his criticisms will carry more weight

It's classic "I'm an X, but even I support anti-X" framing

Yep. You also see it often with "black" Trump/Bernie-supporting accounts

Percy does not strike me as the type to think before speaking anyhow

Oh dear

Who wants to tell Screech and Percy?

Please pray for the goats y'all
They assume everyone else is dumb and they alone are the geniuses

Percy started it. Then Screech jumped in.

I hold grudges and have poor impulse control. Plus I *really* enjoy making bullies have an aneurysm.

This is the LLC defendant in the LOLsuit filing its initial response

This particular snippet is laying out the grounds for why the defamation claim is congenitally defective

It (coincidentally!) mirrors what a dozen+ lawyers have been saying for days

If it reaches trial (unlikely), all the Defendants would be tried in one proceeding

So Plaintiff goes, then Defendant 1 goes, Defendant 2, etc

And the jury would judge each independently

Assume Percy bills at $300/hr, and likely will have an army of paralegals billing out at $150/hr doing piddly

My guess is the $175K lasts for a year or so, Vic loses, then has to shell out $$$$$$$ to the Defendants, then files for malpractice vs Percy

Yep – but first, Vic's team has to prove they believed the allegations were false but made them anyway, before the Defendants had to say anything at all

A competent lawyer would have told Vic to never file suit after making these kinds of apologies

And to never make these apologies after he filed suit

Someone should let Vic know

Deadline under Texas's anti-SLAPP statute hasn't passed yet. They're likely going to gather evidence before filing it

Elections aren't courts of law governed by half-century-old precedents 😘

*Exactly*

This is why defamation LOLsuits are ridiculed on Twitter

Not when it comes to predicting the outcome of defamation LOLsuits, no

We're too busy enjoying the build-up to the Big L they're going to take

Cry about it

Because Screech and Percy convinced him that fighting back would help his career

Which, historically, it does. Briefly.

But then they lose and things are even worse than they would be otherwise

Many more viewers here, sorry

Keep crying though

I still get out of bed, but it's much more fun having tormenters to torment ☺️

You created your account today and your first 5 tweets are all to me

The sockpuppetry is just sad

10 now

100% to me

I'm living rent-free in your head and you don't even notice

Yes

They likely assumed the company would settle to save money

Bingo

They also know it won't make it to trial, so paying the fee for the jury demand inflates the court costs he'll have to repay too

You seem like the type to closely scrutinize penises in his spare time

Not at all. This case is an easy W for the defense.

Probably a dozen. Switching accounts in shifts to make it more convincing.

That's exactly what this is

It's also why Screech and Percy set up the GoFundMe, so they can still get paid after Vic gets smoked

It's the child molester version of "owning the libs"

Vic doesn't have to prove "malice," he has to prove "actual malice"

They're different concepts

Brief point on this

Screech and Percy need more donation money, so they're going to explain this away tonight by saying it's all standard defense language

Mostly true, but...

1/
There are parts of Funimation's answer where you can tell the lawyers are going to nuke the Plaintiff

Referencing Vic's "previously diminished reputation"? Standard lawyerese

Calling Vic "libel-proof," which functionally means the exact same thing? Planning a bonfire

2/2
That's exactly what they want

The only way to curtail lawfare is to make an example of the aggressors

Yes. Precisely because libel-proof people aren't dumb enough and/or so poorly advised by their attorney(s) to think they can win a libelslander LOLsuit

It's one of those "the floggings continue until morale improves" things. It will never end because the participants are incapable of learning

Unpublished statements can't be defamatory

"Published" ➡️ sent to 1+ other people

You're embarrassing yourself man

Because slander is a subcategory of defamation you brainlet

He needs to keep the momentum going. His donors are sad that things have turned out the way they have the last few days

Are you... crying?

Definitely looks like you're crying

Correct. The law used to make a substantive distinction between spoken (slander) and written (libel) defamation. Now we just call it all defamation and use the same elements to prove the case regardless

In which a YouTube LOLyer doesn't understand that the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act applies to spoken defamation too
Always glad to provide the entertainment! 👊

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 73.054(b)

How Not to be a YouTube LOLyer
A Play in 4 Acts
There are actually quite a few citations mid-thread, both from me as well as other attorneys

You should read them

Part of me feels bad for the other LOLyers who chimed in on their side hoping for some asspats and an attaboy

Yessir. Guaranteed to go for at least another week according to the betting pool

How'd that line go in Captain America? "I can do this all day"

Sad thing is if he wasn't so busy trying to preen for the fanbois he'd actually learn something about defamation law

He could even make a living defending them instead of screeching for the live-streams

Mostly standard defamation defense boilerplate, with a few extra paragraphs thrown in ("libel-proof" etc) to tip off the Plaintiff that he's going to get blitzed

OMG Booze Clues is entirely too on-the-nose

IMO there is -0- chance counsel would've added that in – when the functional effect is identical to the "previously diminished reputation" they already referenced – if they didn't have a lot of ammo

Vic goes first. If he presents enough evidence, then Ds

Oh dear

Vic fanbois may need to GoFundMe a change of undies for Screech

That will surely be evidence he presents to support his case

But last time I defended a defamation suit by a molester, I buried him in sworn affidavits from victims. Would not be surprised to see the same here eventually.

It's evidence, but not necessarily persuasive. One of the lines of inquiry will almost certainly be whether his career was declining (how many roles? con invites? revenue?) before the allegedly defamatory statements, and why

Are you crying?

Because it sure looks like you're crying

Yes, because those are the claims spread about him

If you want him to add me to the defamation LOLsuit, please tell Percy so he can do it 😘

Except Vic has to prove they were false

And he has to prove the people who made them knew they were false

Good luck with that

Your error is in thinking Screech's viewers are the people I'm trying to reach

You're right, I was in traffic heading to Fedex

Very perceptive, A++

*waste

Joe and I have cases in the same county. And based on Screech's performance these past 5 days, not knowing him is a net-positive

Someone needs to remaster the Leroy Jenkins GIF to Barbra Streisand

Vic likely finds a lawyer to file a malpractice claim, in hopes he can get some of that money to make up for the slew of news articles talking about how badly he got beat

The CHUDs are SOL though, they don't get anything back

This is exactly the one I was thinking of, just with different captioning 😂

Nope. There's a doctrine called res judicata that prohibits a Plaintiff from re-litigating a case that's already been litigated

Sure. But if either of you think that's a positive, it says more about you than it does about me

Most states permit a Plaintiff to dismiss their own suit and re-file later. For example, in NC Plaintiff can "take a dismissal" at any time before ending their case at trial, and has 1 year to re-file (or when the SOL lapses, whichever happens first)

1/
Those are dismissals "without prejudice," which just means it can be re-filed

Likewise, a Court often dismisses without prejudice where a lawsuit has some minor form/procedural defects revealed in a Motion to Dismiss hearing

2/
@GlennF
Dismissals "with prejudice" means the case can't be re-filed. Because that's considered a final judgment, it's subject to appeal

3/3
@GlennF
All states provide for at least 1 round of appellate review on most things (some exclude stuff like minor traffic tickets from appeal), called an "appeal as of right," meaning the court must hear it

After that 1st round, practices vary widely by state

1/
For states where the initial appeal is heard in a "panel" format (typically a group of 3 appellate judges), some provide for what's called "en banc" review (where all appellate judges re-hear the case)

2/
@citrusknight
Then typically after that there is the state's highest court ("Supreme Court" in most places outside NY), that has discretionary review powers like SCOTUS, plus a few instances where review is mandatory

3/
@citrusknight
Here in NC, for example, civil cases go from either District or Superior Court to the NC Court of Appeals where a panel rules. We do not have en banc review

4/
@citrusknight
Appeal to the NC Supreme Court after that is discretionary, unless either (1) the appeals panel had a dissenting judge or (2) it's a death penalty case

(Our appellate lawyers can chime in if I'm missing anything)

5/5
@CitrusKnight
You don't seem to understand what "arguing" means

If you would stop f*cking that goat, you might learn something

Actually 1,404 tweets over 5 days (the gray bars). 12 an hour.

But I'm not surprised people who can't read also can't count 😘

Howtf did y'all brainlets get an extra 2K tweets in that count? 😂😂😂
🤡: "I don't follow you and don't see your tweets unless I proactively navigate to your timeline, but PLEASE stop torching my senpai 😫"

Me:
Lots of alcohol

And the nagging self-doubt that you are, in fact, a brainlet

Unless you count the LOLbux, in which case we've all been paid quite handsomely

Correct. And tbh precisely why it's been so entertaining.

They thought they were gonna swarm and get me to shut up, and instead they've just been crying that everyone is dunking on them mercilessly

Hello @threadreaderapp

Unroll please
Hey @marchimark / @Rialisms / @RonToye, do y'all have any screenshots from Vic's fan club?
Because I've got some screenshots I'm going to redact and release. Your lawyers will want to request the unredacted versions from whatever app he's using

Alright so here are the screencaps. Tried to redact names as best I could but the text is tiny as sh*t

Nothing earth-shattering here, but:

➡️ "I hug everyone!" will be a useful admission

➡️ His full reversal from his apologies makes both sets of statements inconsistent
Not familiar with whatever app that is but have zero doubt there will be more useful stuff in it
Ah. I think I've heard about it, but never used it. Any idea how long the servers keep the data? Are posts archived?

Fun part is that, in court, "he hugs everyone!" definitely does *not* help the Plaintiff

Remember: in defamation cases, the "truth" affirmative defense only means "substantial" truth – that the "gist" or "sting" of the defamatory statements is true, even if specifics are wrong

"He hugs everyone!" will be evidence proving the gist that he touches women w/o consent
Tbh I do the same 😂 Unliked tweets in my @'s mean I haven't gotten to them yet

Imagine having to read all these people the first time 😜

Good news: someone was kind of enough to archive the entire Discord convo (and even redacted the names already!)

27-screenshot album starts here: facebook.com/RisemboolRange…
I expected him to sound more masculine. This is quite disappointing

I know y'all will be shocked to discover these super-sleuths found the ancestry info I'd already talked about on Twitter

No, Screech. The Minnesota LOLyer who makes his living on YouTube

You would win that bet 😂 Paternal line however many generations ago fought in the Revolutionary War

What did you type in to get this?

It's creepy and I love it 😬

This tweet alone makes you a more competent lawyer than both Screech and Percy

No thanks, I'd rather watch them crash and burn while cackling all the while

No one's going after his fans; I'm pointing out that Vic makes a number of statements to those fans that will be quite useful to use against him in his LOLsuit

Alright folks, off to bed so I can head to court in Wake tomorrow AM. Day 5 was fun! Looking forward to Day 6 😇
Witty!

(I don't delete tweets. I also don't block, it deprives my fans of the opportunity to join me in curb-stomping trolls in their spare time. Cry about it. 😘)

WELCOME TO DAY 6 FOLKS 😁
I suspect that will be unduly optimistic

That's a question better asked to the labor & employment and/or premises liability attorneys on here, unfortunately not my area of expertise

My educated guess is that there might be some form of potential negligence, but probably time-barred by SOL

Nothing meaningful to continue yet. Next stage after the pleadings is to do discovery, unless / until discovery is paused for an anti-SLAPP motion (which hasn't been filed yet, but deadline is a week or so away)

Byproduct of actually handling these cases vs just commenting on them (Screech) or taking his first one because there was GFM money (Percy)

Notice: about a dozen other lawyers were also on the same page, they know this stuff too :)

"I don't want to do the intellectual work to read, so please go onto a show and entertain me instead" is not a compelling argument 😂
If you think it's cowardly to have a *lot* more people see what's going on than would just watching Screech's show, idk what to tell you

Given how badly your boy Screech has f*cked up the basics, repeatedly, it seems he has more trouble with tweeting than you suggest

Exactly: he doesn't understand lawyerspeak

Why you think a translation of something he doesn't understand is helpful, idk 😂

Typically the lawyers prepare affidavits of hours put into the case, and it's up to a judge to decide how much of that number is granted as an award Plaintiff has to repay

Percy almost certainly keeps his GFM billables, yes

1/
The specific mechanics of an attorney malpractice claim varies by state. Typically a client has to prove "standard" negligence (duty owed, duty breached, damages exist, the damages were caused by the breach) plus something more

2/
@sadogre
For example, in NC a client suing for malpractice would have to prove that their claim was viable, and it was *only* because of the malpractice that the case lost ("but for" causation). Idk re Texas, but Vic won't be able to do that if it's a requirement there

3/3
@sadogre
I was @-tagged the "my client is not fecal matter" from the cease-and-desist, then the "Jesus would not set people on fire"

So then I googled for the lawsuit itself, and discovered it was only marginally less LOLable

Then Screech had an aneurysm and his CHUD army spewed forth from the sewers

I've been enjoying the game of Whack-A-Troll since, sprinkled amid providing folks actual, accurate legal information based on my history of defending defamation lawsuits pro bono

@OzyMadenka
Oh Lord 😂

Let's hope whoever inevitably shares screencaps of these emails also includes full header data. I suspect reviewing the IP addresses will be fascinating.

Also LOL that an account created 3 months ago decides to make that it's very first tweet

The same firm sanctioned by Texas courts for fake subpoenas, complaining about fake emails
I'm still new to all the disputes so I don't know what emails are already out there, but it's written as though it's already common knowledge

The full header data will have the IP address of the originating computer and every hop made en route though

Given their track record, it certainly could be an outright lie. I'm assuming incompetence for now though

(My money is on them seeing a screenshot taken from Gmail and assuming that meant the email came from a gmail.com address)

I used to have my own name as a domain

Then I realized I was paying money to never use it

Now it's a Chinese gambling site IIRC
Maybe that's the motive: put out a bogus statement to work the kiwis into a lather and get them donating again

1️⃣ Not a condo
2️⃣ Much less than $1K/mo
3️⃣ Haven't had a Hyundai since 2016
4️⃣ Cry about it

❤️

It's damage control

Note well: there wouldn't be any need to do damage control if all this exposure wasn't hurting them

Yep.

Won't stop them from getting railed in court though. This is all performative outrage.

Far more likely you end up borrowing a few hollow points, Mr. 189 IQ

Probably scared someone away with his halitosis as a youth, but mommy explained his eyes had special powers

The supposed explanation from ISWV is that these fake emails had nothing to do with the Vic LOLsuit

Which of course they intentionally don't mention, b/c they know the only ppl likely to see their tweet are those watching that case

@AshleyUncia
It's an effective manipulation tactic

@AshleyUncia
Typically it's a side effect of JPEG compression when you're screenshotting text. JPG is a "lossy" format, meaning it trades quality for smaller file size. Many phones and apps use PNG as a default now b/c of it, which is "lossless"

It also happens when lossless formats like PNG are automatically converted to JPG by other apps for compatibility purposes

My guess is that image has been passed around and degraded over time. Whoever has the original will have the clear screenshot w/ white background

@ExKage
And yet you're still @'ing me repeatedly, days later, like a Vic groupie wanting a hug

Go garden 👋

I mean really 😂
Got a thread on it that ends here:

There are some additional nuances by state, but that should get him mostly up-to-speed

Basically, yes. It's not an affirmative defense but it will be an argument they make in their briefs, based on the evidence that comes out during discovery or affidavits that get filed

That language is more signaling than legal effect though

1/
It's functionally identical to saying that Vic had a previously diminished reputation (said elsewhere). Being libel-proof is taking that line to an extreme but doesn't have any independent legal meaning.

They're telegraphing that they have lots of evidence

2/2
@hereforonepost
It's plausible there's an investigation. Don't forget that one of Percy's law partners is a state senator

That requires a modicum of self-awareness

In that case maybe @greggentry1 is right, I hadn't seen his tweet earlier

Seems weird to have both diminished rep and libel-proof as separate defenses when they're just differences in degree of the same concept, but ::shrug::

I mean tactically when would there ever be a benefit to claiming libel-proof vs diminished rep, esp when you end up always proving the latter en route to proving the former?
@Terez27 @greggentry1
Burden of proof always lies with the Plaintiff. If Vic can't meet his burden – proving the statements were false and that the Defendants' had actual malice when making them – the case ends before the Defendants get to present anything at all

If it gets to trial, and Vic's team meets his burden of proof by the end of their case-in-chief, then each of the Defendants will have their own independent opportunity to prove truth, diminished rep, etc. If any 1 succeeds, all win.
@hereforonepost
Because they're not interested in learning

Read the last line of his tweet. That's the only part he wanted to say

They want the attention. The little notifications they get every time someone likes a tweet they're @'d in, they get a little endorphin bump

And I'm *totally fine* giving them that... as long as we can all collectively continue dunking on them 😇

Where did you question my competence?

It took me 24+ hours to respond because I have legions of goatf*ckers in my @'s so I've missed the bulk of what has come in. I found your question doing a search for something else

🤡: "wHy DiDn'T yOu AnSwEr Me SoOnEr?"

From the same ppl who then say I spend too much time on Twitter 😂

(-‸ლ)
Nah. They'll get bored of it before I will.

And thinking I'm so bothered by the passé insults they bleat out between tears that I'll go on YT with Screech

Believe whatever helps you sleep at night. I just showed you I'm getting nearly 1,000 @'s a day interspersed among tens of thousands of RTs and likes. But you don't seem like the type of person convinced by evidence so...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This was an excellent movie, and the captioning makes it that much better 😂

Makes sense. In my mind I just don't see a substantive difference b/c I've never pled libel-proof but still gotten a $1 judgment on a "lost" case

(Obligatory probably-obvious-to-y'all disclaimer that said case was in NC. @AkivaMCohen @greggentry1 @terez27)
No.

Vic is the one suing. The people he's suing are innocent until proven otherwise.

Vic will not – quite literally cannot – "say they are lying under oath" and that's the end of it

He will then be cross-examined by at *least* 3 different defense attorneys. Who will crucify him.
30 days, unless there's a pause due to issues with the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act that got talked about yesterday

TX appellate courts have said taking longer than 30 days to decide is treated as a constructive denial of the anti-SLAPP

Yeah we call those "deceptive indicators." Check out the guest interview at the end of this pod: fsckemall.com/2017/11/spy-li…

Vic uses a lot of them, noticeable to anyone who's read "Spy the Lie"

That one was recent, so at least 900 or so

You tweet like you have some really filthy fantasies. No wonder mommy won't let you out of the basement.

B+ on originality

The only one that actually made me chuckle was Wendy's-Arby's "girl"

Precisely why I do it, want y'all to understand the type of ppl who are out there voting and procrea...

...just voting

A bit disappointed with the graphics work tbh

If he's gonna spend hours working on a banner, at least take out the template text at the top and bottom

Fun fact: according to case law (actually from the Texas Supreme Court), the only way it can be TIC / TIBP is if the statements are found to be defamatory

If the defamation claim fails, alllllll the others go bye-bye. Automatically.

Just one problem with your theory champ: Vic can't prove actual malice, even if all 400 text messages get added in to the record

The LOLsuit is getting nuked, the only question is when

ok I officially got lawyered on this one 😂

Unfortunately for you, you're wrong.

He has to prove actual malice if he's a public figure -or- if the statements are on an issue of public concern (basically anything at all for which there's been media coverage).

Try again. Do better.

Dissected a libelslander LOLsuit filed by a LOLyer-grifter working with a YouTube LOLyer-grifter, all on behalf of a diddler who made a number of incriminating statements in public beforehand

Been dealing with the diddlers' and LOLyers' fanbois since

That's a good way to describe it, though it's much broader than that

Consider: every single arrest, of every person, no matter how minor the offense, is a matter of public interest

The GoFundMe that Screech set up describes it as money for "legal defense fees" 😂

Sure sounds like wire fraud...

Here's the wire fraud statute, for folks wondering why a GFM raising money for "legal defense fees" that's instead spent to fund a proactive lawsuit is a bad idea

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
Yep. Amazing how CHUD attaboys can erode one's legal acumen

It wasn't just in the title, but in the body as well

"Fraud" is a catch-all that encompasses a variety of swindles. Saying you need money for X that you're really going to use for Y is a form of fraud called obtaining property by false pretenses

I'll put it to you like this: if Screech were black – not just wearing his #BlackfaceLawyer outfit – and worked a day job, he'd be arrested based on the description regardless of the marketing or ToS

But he's (allegedly) a LOLyer so nothing will happen

You'd think a lawyer would know what "notice pleading" and "actual malice" meant too though 😉

Current O/U is 11 days, but personally I'd take the over on that bet

So you found... an in-depth profile from the alt-weekly that endorsed me in 2016?

The one that's usually the top result when you Google my name and go under the "News" tab?

I'm impressed!

They're a bunch of super-sleuths, I tell ya

For the CHUDs supporting a predator, yes

Free advice: don't talk to the police if you're ever arrested. You're not smart enough to do it.

This guy's one of those "you can't convict me of pedophilia when *technically* it's ephebophilia" types
No, they're 2 actors who are targets of ISWV basement-dwellers. They think we're BFFLs b/c I pointed out Screech and Percy are terrible LOLyers

I don't know that last distinction yet and I refuse to look it up

These folks aren't accustomed to anyone reading their tweets, so they can't imagine anyone reading threads

I wonder how many this is at this point 🤔🤣
That's not what the article says.

Try again. Do better.

The other one thought an article said I'd been Republican since age 2

They're uniformly dumb af, it's impressive

Except the state laws and precedents that will apply have already been discussed mid-thread

You would know that, were you capable of understanding polysyllabic words

Props for having a 3-year-old sockpuppet account though I guess?
Tbh though I *really* want to use brainlet during oral arguments one day

Narrator: "They would not be successful attorneys."

With Day 7 of the mega-thread dawning tomorrow, I just want to take a moment to reflect...

...and to remind folks that these are actual bona fide excerpts from Percy's cease-and-desist letters
The TDMA requires identifying defamatory statements

Anything about Jesus can, literally, never be defamatory

Percy included it b/c he didn't know what "actual malice" meant and just listed all mean tweets

And he still missed one he talks about

The Son of God is a public figure though, so good luck proving actual malice

Correct

If you assume Percy was/is serious, then he's an idiot

But if you assume this was his first defamation case and he didn't know what "actual malice" meant, he's just incompetent

Both could be right, but I'm leaning toward Option #2

Nope. At least not in America, idk re countries with an official state religion.

Not in the complaint, a pre-complaint letter. Texas has a special statute requiring potential plaintiffs to make a request for retraction of all defamatory statements before they can file a LOLsuit. These are excerpts from Percy's attempt to do that.

Aye. Texas is one of the top 3-4 states for defendants in defamation cases. Totally idiotic to file one there.

WE WELCOME YOU TO DAY 7 OF THE THREADNOUGHT

It just pauses the lawsuit and all related deadlines until they do it

Are you implying that the law firm sanctioned by Texas courts for sending fake subpoenas would do something unethical? 😱

I'm afraid to face Screech. Terrified. Very very scared.

Cry about it.

Question for the Texas lawyers: I'm assuming TX recognizes a litigation privilege, yes?
The entertaining part about you Kiwis is that you stick to the same talking points even when far more damning evidence is staring you straight in the face

Take "Hyundai-driving." Sick burn bro. But I've been in a Toyota RAV4 since 2016

It was sleek too. Maroon paint job, all black interior, alloy wheels. A friend christened it "your law firm limo"

I miss that car 😭

Don't forget Mike, Mark, at least a half-dozen or so more in the thread

It would be epic

And they found out I had a cat, so how do you miss the different car? 😂😂

None I'm aware of, but wanted to make sure

Sounds like an opportune time to file detailed affidavits from Vic's victims, since those victims then couldn't be sued for them later

Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were arrested and criminally charged. Cosby is currently warming a jail cell.

This is a civil LOLsuit

Tbh it sounds like Screech was a competent attorney once upon a time

Idk what happened between then and now, but I'm embarrassed for him

That's because @TyBeard10 had never done a defamation case before and doesn't know what it looks like just before getting steamrolled

Holy sh*t that really does look like him! 😂😂

And the skinny guy on the side could definitely be Screech

It's definitely had that effect. For now.

We call these things "Phyrric victories," because he's going to end up worse than before after this case is done

The statute of limitations is irrelevant to the defense. It only applies to the Plaintiff.

And even 8-years-old stories will be used to prove that the "gist" of the "he's a predator" statements is true

Meaning the LOLsuit will be nuked

We love Boozy! Though only interact with his barrister alter ego so we can keep up appearances and such

Yeah that was the highlight of Day 5

Did you see his follow-up?

No, statutes of limitation exist for the sole purpose of ensuring defendants have a fair chance to defend themselves before evidence spoils, witnesses die, etc

It's a concept designed exclusively to benefit Defendants

The defendants here are not Vic

Seven

I'm going to create a separate summary thread that just has links to each day's festivities, so it's easier to follow along

"If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

I realize you don't actually have friends so disregard that question
The tears are what make it worthwhile 😉 Especially the sh*tposters who end up blocking me in frustration

Exactly

Dude's brain has melted from the CHUD asspats

Initially that was the plan!

But then Screech chimed in, and Percy asked for the kiwis to be his personal army (which they dutifully did like a bunch of pathetic laptrolls)

So here we are

Oh I'm totally cashing in, the LOLbux are flowing like fine wine over here

Of course the easiest way to stop me is to stop @'ing me so I'd have nothing to cash in on 🤔

Seven straight days 😂

I enjoy how worked up they get. And some of the other folks who've joined the dunkfest are damn funny

*at least a dozen lawyers

But otherwise yes, totally agreed

But hey they did find that one lawyer in Alabama who backed them up! 🤣

@jasonb101588 @MichaelToole
You're still crying?

They have medications for that

They don't think before tweeting. It's just performative grunting in text form

I don't want to lose IQ points by listening to the clip y'all are talking about, but he may be right here if I'm understanding what you're typing right. The Prudential case held the independent right to interfere didn't expand to defamatory interference
1/
So if they're accepting the interfering communications were privileged, they will also have to show they were defamatory. Which, by extension, requires proving actual malice.

2/2
@apark2453
Not interested in putting anything to bed. I'm interested in putting things in the ground.

Oh we have been

You're just not adequately informed to realize that's what's been going on

"Malice" and "actual malice" are different legal concepts

They are not related and are in-no-way alike

Who knew Groundhog Day was a documentary?

TFW you really want to defend your friend but can't do it effectively, so you opt for "he likes the ladies and the ladies like him" [including 14yo girls apparently] and "he was naive enough to miss the changing times" about consent
This woman would make an excellent witness for the defense 😂
"I've seen photoshops and I can tell this wasn't shopped."

Haha no misunderstanding, I was agreeing with you! I've had ppl tell me faked images are legit even after we've hired someone to confirm they were faked

Narrator: "he was not, in fact, acting"

Say it with me: because Percy doesn't have the slightest clue how defamation law works

Complete with a quote used unironically

Nah, that's the defense attorneys' jobs

I'll be content burying their reputations as attorneys. Which seems to be most-effectively done by letting a bunch of people see their work product

In defamation law, we call public comments like this – years before a LOLsuit – "substantial truth"

And there are *hundreds* of these 😱

change.org/p/funimation-v…
Don't need to be verifiable to qualify as "reputation in the community"

Except my net worth will be more than Vic's after he's ordered to pay the defense's attorney fees in this case 🙃 #CryAboutIt

F*ckin' YIKES, Part III

A Good Samaritan was kind enough to download every single comment from that petition a few tweets up and dumped it into a textfile

Scroll through at your leisure and screencap anything you see that looks interesting 🙃

pastebin.com/3tApgDvr
These aren't comments *from* Vic, they're comments directed to Funimation *about* Vic from a Change.org petition

Provides enormous scads of "reputation in the community" evidence establishing his pre-existing rep as a sexual predator

That there are *so many* comments also serves as evidence that both 1️⃣ Vic is a public figure and 2️⃣ his predations are an issue of public concern
Seems likely at the rate this stuff is bubbling out

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAARBRA STREISANNNND!

They don't want to be perceived as trying too hard (while obsessively @'ing me from a dozen+ sockpuppet accounts each)

1,000+ comments and you found... 1?

That's it?

Sounds like these comments are even more uniformly damning than I thought!

F*ckin' YIKES, Part IV

And it's a whole thread!

Except Vic himself admitted it. In multiple videotaped appearances that are sprinkled throughout the Threadnought

You are wrong

They wouldn't be able to do anything criminal; their remedy for this particular case is going to be the sizable order for attorney fees the court will make Vic pay

They may have grounds to file what's called a counterclaim, but seems unlikely

He's not going to win this case.

Guaranteed.

And new, previously undisclosed allegations made public *AND CLOAKED BY THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE FOREVERMORE* 😂😂😂

I'm sure he would. He lives in Australia, their laws are quite different.

What is the First Amendment to Australia's Constitution?

It does! Went into effect when it officially broke off from being a British colony

Please tell me you googled this and didn't already know? 😂

(This is correct btw)

It was a bit of a trick question. The AUS Constitution has been amended 8x in all, but they don't exist as separate amendments in a colloquial sense b/c they actually change the doc's language. There's no AUS Bill of Rights like we have here

So, as a result, AUS defamation law is *vastly* more Plaintiff-friendly than in the US (in a relative sense anyway – it's still Defendant-friendly overall)
@ozymadenka
You see the 💩 we've been dealing with?

This was a great movie, have it in my collection 😂

So you're going to donate $100 to a charity of my choice when it turns out I'm right?

Required for victors of an anti-SLAPP motion under the Texas Citizens Participation Act

TX also enacted a "loser pays" statute in 2011, requiring an award of fees in costs if a case is dismissed on what is other states' versions of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

FML I should've included it in the initial response tweet
(-‸ლ)

I was wondering when we'd get to "fire in a crowded theater" 😂

cc: @Popehat @NonWhiteHat

Easily top 3 dumbest law tweets I've read on here

And that's *after* getting @'d by Nick Rekieta and Ty Beard

Vic absolutely has to prove a negative

A simple denial will not be sufficient evidence to win his case. Especially after 3 separate attorneys cross-examine him

Plaintiff's go first before Defendants present any evidence at all

Vic is absolutely a public figure. As would be any high-profile VA with a years-old fan club with hundreds of stans lurking the depths of the internet

And even if he weren't, his predatory tendencies are an issue of public concern

Actual malice req'd

I swear they cannot grasp anything at all

Except maybe a goat's hindquarters

Correct

There a metric f*ckload of public figures I've literally never heard of at any point in life

There is no "public figure to one person but private figure to another" distinction in defamation law

If someone is a public figure to anybody, they are a public figure to everyone

Part of me wonders if this is some sort of social experiment to plumb the depths of human stupidity

And tbh I'm not even sure we're near the bottom yet

F*ckin' YIKES, Part V

I really started the F*ckin' YIKES series as a joke, but damn there really. is. always. more. 🤢🤮

Complete with -3- different variations on the hashtag! 😂

YOU SHUT YOUR FILTHY F*CKING MOUTH RIGHT THIS INSTANT

I made the mistake of reading this subthread b/c of this tweet, and I regret it 😂

Except it's not though, when the legal advice sought is whether the documents can be released

So how do you think lawyers do consultations?

It's not

One of the targets of the ISWV folks contacted me for legal advice, the issue was one of federal law (which I'm licensed to provide!), so I advised them

These chucklef*cks seem to think I've broken some rule because I don't have a Texas license

And what's *really* going to chap their ass is when they discover the advice I provided is protected by attorney-client privilege

@digiranma
What jurisdiction do you think I need to have to advise someone on federal law?

So what jurisdiction do you think the First Amendment is?

True story: I actually provided the address to send complaints about me to the @NCStateBar in an earlier tweet if these folks are so confident I'm breaking rules

Which courts do you think are "constitutional courts"?

This was actually a deceptively good impersonation, you almost had me fooled 😂

I don't need to know the facts surrounding it when I know the law surrounding it

Since the First Amendment "is not absolute," which part of it do you think was violated?

So was releasing the letters defamation? Or commercial speech?

For most purposes, you asking for advice and receiving it creates an attorney-client relationship even if we're not retained. We have to keep quiet about what was discussed, we're conflicted out of representing the adverse party afterward, etc

I couldn't tell you if I knew what the letters were based on or not, as that would violate attorney-client privilege

I'm developing brain worms just trying to understand the sh*t these weebs are throwing at the wall

So we're back at this again

1️⃣ How do you think attorneys do consultations?

2️⃣ What jurisdiction do you think I need to advise someone on the First Amendment?

So are you saying that a lawyer cannot do a consultation if they're not seeking a lawyer-client relationship?

How do organizations like the NC Bar Association do Ask-A-Lawyer telethons where people call in to have their questions answered then?

F*ck me I'm screwed I should just go disbar myself right now 😭😭😭

So now you're saying lawyers *can* do consultations without seeking a lawyer-client relationship? 🤔

"I'll wait for the verdict" before calling Ty Beard, you brainlet. I will happily dunk on Percy, Screech, and the rest of you in the interim

Now back to my Q: are you admitting lawyers can do consultations without seeking a lawyer-client relationship?

I've heard that if you send @NickRekieta a few hundred bucks and watch his YouTube channel for a month, he'll send you a JD

No but for $50 he'll send you a bottle of Fireball

You seem to have missed the question, so I'll ask it again –

Are you admitting lawyers can do consultations without seeking a lawyer-client relationship?

This reminds me that I didn't fold the #blackfacelawyer convo with the judge into The Threadnought – I'd posted it separately

Let me fix that oversight right quick

Here's the separate thread on my conversation about one of the LOLyers grifting off this case

Yes. You'll rarely be able to get any information out of them about much of anything

The judge I talked to was/is in N.C. though. Idk howtf these people think they were in TX

That is indeed their latest theory

I am deeply pleased with myself that I can be both so irrelevant and so influential at the same time

Alright folks I'm off to bed

Thus concludes Day 7 – Week 1! – of The Threadnought

I'll work on a separate summary thread for quick nav tomorrow
I ask myself that same question every morning 😉

Has either Screech or Percy disclosed how they came to know each other?

Interesting. I have a totally speculative theory.

But first I have an 11a hearing so brb

This is accurate. It's why I @'d @BullCityVA a few days back about California's view of it, to try and tip off the Kiwis and conVics that the communications I may (or may not) have had were privileged

So I have a totally-speculative theory that may be baseless in whole or in part, but it explains some of the "LOLwut??" f*ck-ups made by Percy and Screech both

Minnesota – where Nick "Screech" Rekieta practices law – has a criminal defamation statute

1/
revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/…
My guess is, being criminal in nature, that's where Screech got his understanding of "malice"

So when he read case law on civil defamation, he didn't realize that "actual malice" was a different legal concept

2/
Screech gets wind of the Vic situation, convinces Vic to do a GFM to bankroll the legal expenses, and then calls his uncle's buddy Ty "Percy" Beard to handle it

3/
Percy's never done defamation cases before, which is why they weren't advertised on his website

So he listens to Screech's explanation of the law. Hopefully does his own research too? But comes away with the same non-understanding of "actual malice"

4/
It would explain why the initial lawsuit alleges -0- facts on actual malice. Neither of them knew what actual malice meant at the time it was filed.

Again, total speculation. I could be wrong. But the theory fits the facts.

5/5
Elon Musk isn't going to court on the "generalized statement." He's going to court on the highly-specific email to BuzzFeed, contained here in the court's order

Yes. This happens every day in courtrooms around the country.

People are routinely convicted every day on literally nothing but personal testimony.

Unfortunately I have to disagree: if the victim is sympathetic enough, or the crime heinous enough, or the defendant non-white enough, I'd say conviction is all but guaranteed

It's why our criminal justice system is such horsesh*t

What do you think the Oberlin College case was about?

Alleged sexual predator with decade+ of accusers was convinced to file a defamation lawsuit against those victims by a 3rd-year lawyer who lives off his YouTube channel and another lawyer who'd never done defamation work

I laughed at them; this resulted

"Suspicious" is not evidence of actual malice

What do you think "actual malice" means?

Every day is Groundhog Day with the conVics

I can't answer your question yet, because you clearly predicated it on there being actual malice

So what do you think "actual malice" means? It's not a trick question

(Trying to change the topic is a super-common tactic by evasive witnesses btw. We're trained to stay on-topic in trial practice class in law school.)
It's all a grand conspiracy to make LOLbux

My assumption is a decent chunk of the MAGAts have actual jobs. These are script kiddies with time on their hands.

Significant chunk of the country is just -1- paycheck away from being homeless. Sorry you had to go through it too, glad you bounced back 👊

Given the past 7 days, I'm unconvinced it would benefit anyone 😂

You do realize that Vic's own lawsuit says he's a public figure, yes?

And that – even if we argued he wasn't – he'd still need to prove actual malice because his sexual predations are an issue of public concern?

Remember: Screech is the legal genius who, just a few days ago, tried to dunk on me by providing a link to a "winning defamation lawsuit" – where the Plaintiff ended up paying money to the Defendants by the time it was over

The amazing part is that "tort reform" is a thoroughly R thing, and those reforms help make it even harder for these chucklef*cks to win

The website got acquired by a local newspaper so the URL doesn't work anymore, but the archive.org version is here: web.archive.org/web/2016071108…

"malicious" is the adjectival form of "malice"

"malice" and "actual malice" are different legal concepts

Since you've read the complaint, where are the paragraphs alleging actual malice?

A side effect of Screech "educating" them

At some point in the indeterminate future I'll go back and block everyone

For now, though, I'm getting too many DMs of ppl taking great joy in watching the spectacle

I've taken a liking to "conVics" – blends in a little Spanish, sounds like our word for those found guilty of criming, and alliterates well with Kiwis

RoboKiller is f*ckin LIT
The CHUDs tried to start the crank calls this morning, been going all day. And they're not even coming through.

Idk who suggested this app to me but I owe you a drink
A background notification with each blocked call

Depends on what the bootleg merch looks like, but it could potentially be trademark infringement

No clue. My guess is it tracks a certain number of repeat calls in a given timeframe then adds them to a blacklist. All contacts are automatically whitelisted, and you can manually block / unblock as needed

Depends on the design, but I love the idea 😂

One of my professors described lawyers as "social janitors"

The actual, functioning link was shared (by me 😱) a few tweets up

You're dumber than a bucketful of used condoms

Texas's version of public figures are incorporated from Supreme Court precedents defining public figures

I used to drive a Hyundai too. They seem to think that was worse

I did not lol. My face starts itching like crazy if I don't shave after like 3 days

Were it me, I'd want to get some things in the filed court record before filing the anti-SLAPP and / or motion to dismiss. We've still got a week or so before the next hint on the strategy

Already disclosed that I'm paid. Handsomely, in fact.

Yes, Defendants are innocent until proven guilty

Which is why the people Vic is suing are presumed innocent. He is going to lose, due to a combination of the applicable law and his lawyers' incompetence

Vic's not the one on trial though

His lawsuit being thrown out – and having to pay a lot of money to the Defendants – won't have any bearing on his guilt or innocence

Not yet. Next step is to see if any of the defendants file an anti-SLAPP motion. Should be due next week.

So back on Day 3 or so of The Threadnought, someone noticed Percy's firm had plagiarized their descriptor of Defamation for the "Practice Areas" of the BHBH website

Turns out they plagiarized several other sections too 😂

WELCOME TO DAY 9 BTW
In your own words, what do *you* think the Oberlin case was about?

How many Plaintiffs were there? Were they public or private figures? What statement(s) were allegedly defamatory and why?

If the Kiwis and conVics are relying on the Oberlin College case, I'd feel *very* comfortable as one of the Defendants here
I had to e-beg for a CPAP machine, dontchaknow. Only fatties get central sleep apnea that has nothing to do with weight.

Because they think a judge is going to use a headline as precedent

A "history of racial discrimination" based on undisclosed facts at that

I seem to recall a lawyer somewhere saying that sort of scenario was actionable... 🤔

Spoiler: it was me. I was that lawyer. In this very thread.

More true than I think even you realize

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm prepared for this to go for months at least

I've got the same machine for the same reason, and couldn't afford one either. If you set up a GFM I'll gladly kick you a few bucks b/c this thing is a lifesaver

Percy is included among the 30+ ppl on that subthread, but presumably he's muted it by now

Vic sued people for claiming he's a sexual predator. Screech (Nick Rekieta) set up the GoFundMe to bankroll the legal fees, Percy (Ty Beard) filed the lawsuit.

The suit is LOLbad; I said that. Screech and Percy had aneurysms. Thus began the Threadnought

Since then about a dozen attorneys, incl several First Amendment specialists, have weighed in to confirm that the LOLsuit is fantastically terrible

Waves of trolls, and the occasional lawyer on the other side, have been sharing their non-understanding of the laws since

@wdonno
It really is! I just sit here and scroll through the notifications 😂

That's the plan 😂 I do need to find a better way to see the @'s I miss though. I'm only getting like 1-of-4 that come in

Hopefully more. I look forward to copy/pasting "Cry about it" repeatedly

A separate summary thread is coming today (hopefully)! I've been swamped with actual-lawyer-work so haven't gotten it finished yet

This is actually really good!

I'd just do a separate pic to go alongside it, where there's a super-huge circle showing "Speech Protected by the First Amendment" (like the pics comparing planet sizes)

Just to keep the scale in perspective :)

True story: there is actually a literally-endless supply of bald white lawyers

I just got the party started ☺️ Thankfully a lot of really smart lawyers on here were willing to jump in and play Whack-A-Troll with me!

Plus a bunch of non-lawyers who've weighed in with background, info for the "F*ckin' YIKES" subthread, a great many GIFs, etc etc etc

It's truly been a festive team effort 😆
We don't know. We *do* know:

1️⃣ the BHBH website didn't list defamation as a practice area until this started;

2️⃣ his TDMA takedown letters show he doesn't understand what's defamatory; and

3️⃣ the LOLsuit text shows he doesn't understand actual malice

I've already said several times now that I'm absolutely getting paid for this

(I do wonder how many of these ppl are dumb enough to think I'm actually getting paid real money 😂)
What should I say is my going rate? Gotta be high enough to be outrageous, but low enough to be believable

$25/tweet?

Nah, just gonna increment a separate summary thread

It's weird for someone to talk this much about something that doesn't concern them, isn't it?

And I guarantee neither Percy nor Screech have put more than a dozen hours into this case. Max.

tfw you forget to switch out of your sockpuppet's account before tweeting in the first-person
This is a really spectacular self-own btw, A++

Of course he deleted it 😂 Have no fear though! Remember, this was the original URL:

And this is the URL where I posted the screenshot before I tipped him off, because I knew he'd delete it 🙃

But remember, the firm has been around for 100 years or some such! Very distinguished! Definitely not LOLyers!

Are we factoring in the high likelihood of it getting dismissed, or presuming it actually would get to a trial?

So in one of the assorted sub-threads that have branched off from the Threadnought, there's currently a fun discussion on champerty

And in another, a conVic is arguing that 14yo's freely consent to being groped by men in their 50s 🤢🤮
Fraud in the colloquial sense maybe, but not a crime. It's actually pretty common in politics, where it's called "astroturfing" (creating fake grassroots)

Definitely the guy you want to take legal advice from and/or disclose details about your case in between shots of Fireball 👍👍

Sockpuppet says photo is shopped, sends "source" and "shopped" pic to guy who does photo analysis

Photo analysis guy says...
⬇️⬇️⬇️
Created a separate thread with background info, initial pleadings, and the entry points mid-thread for each day's festivities

It'll be my pinned tweet for a bit, so folks who've been wondering wtf is going on can get caught up

Nah, pretty uniform caliber of stupidity coming across the @'s. The quantity just ebbs and flows.

Hey man, I found the start of each days' tweets for 9 days – I'll let more patient folks find each days' lowlights 😂

As Day 9 of the Threadnought wraps up, a few notes on the TDMA letters:

➡️ Where are the "400+ tweets"? Aren't they supposed to be in here before they can sue on them?

➡️ Why do they use letterhead for every page?

➡️ Why does each one list @RonToye? 🤔

I'm obviously not a successful lawyer like Screech or Percy, but for six figures I'd expect better-quality work product...
Safe to say you've royally muffed it when even @WilliamShatner is pissed at you

Idk about the rest of you but I'm legitimately shocked (shocked!) at the last line of that last screenshot 😂

That would be him, yes. We labeled him "Screech" for ease of reference

What was Vic charged with? And where?

My theory is that Percy had never done one of these before, and relied on Screech's explanation of what defamation meant

None; we'd certainly agree to them if asked, but don't seek them out b/c we realize folks don't typically want to hear from lawyers about much of anything at all 😂

Wish they could at least come up with some new questions for the new accounts

Lawyers don't keep win/loss records after about a dozen cases or so

I've had 689 criminal cases since I began practicing in September 2012, of which about 40 are currently pending. I've had 307 from all other practice areas, of which about 25 are pending

Hundreds of times, easily

In a good trial, with competent opposing counsel, rarely – both attorneys know that objections break the flow too much, so they try to ask questions that aren't objectionable

In a bad trial, almost every question

It is, I've started scaling back because of it. If my active caseload ever hits 100 I pause taking new clients until more of them get finished

I was told by @ScottGreenfield half a decade ago that a "win" is whenever your client is happy with the outcome. I don't like that measurement but it makes sense

Perk of running my own shop, it's all in my client management system and can be exported to CSV in a few clicks ☺️

I had a cross-application for protective orders case, representing a husband who got knocked out with a crowbar. Asked opp counsel to just consent to the dual POs and call it a day; he refused (former DA). It was as bad as going against a pro se

1/
Nearly every question on direct was leading, didn't know how to authenticate records, had no structure to his questions, bad objections to my exhibits

The judge got so annoyed she actually ended my direct, stopped me from closing, and granted our order 😂

2/2
@popelizbet
Haha nah, I'm smart enough to know what I don't know 😉

It's hard to do that in crim though, b/c DAs typically have guidelines on pleas so your options are to either take a plea in a fixed range, or take your chances with a judge / jury and face much worse consequences

I will say I've never had an upset felony client, or an upset street pharmacist (or both since they overlap often 😂). They're my main referral sources on the crim side.
If the objections are garbage, yes. If they have merit, usually the opposite happens: they get super-pissed at the lawyer asking the objectionable questions

I'm absolutely sure they're convinced they're achieving something though

Congratulations to the Kiwis on finally finding the bankruptcy filing I told them about days ago at least? 😂

Info publicly shared 1.5 years ago actually 🤣 These people do terrible oppo

It does not

I'm just impressed at how fearsome the paper tiger is

And the bulk of it is student loans 😱

Especially with your glass of wine sitting there on the corner of the table

How much do you think they'll sell for on eBay when he loses the case for Vic?

That was for misdemeanor assault on a female though. I'd have shot him had it been a felony case 😉

Rob's talking about this case, if you haven't heard the story yet:

twitter.com/i/moments/1017…
When ppl ask me why I still do criminal defense if it means I'm gonna be broke, I tell them it's b/c it gives me the best story material 😂

I don't have enough self-discipline to sit through the gibberish

Nah, State Bars rarely take action on stuff like this. The Rules of Professional Conduct are designed to protect clients; when Vic loses the case, they may be more concerned if Vic himself filed a complaint, but that's it

Only time where State Bars frequently discipline attorneys where clients themselves haven't complained is when a lawyer is found to be breaking the law (arrested for something, bouncing an IOLTA check, etc)
@JmgGarriga15
This is true. I try to keep a 3:1 crim:civil mix b/c the civil stuff takes a ridiculously greater amount of time

I hadn't considered we've got an international audience here 😂 It's just my preferred euphemism for drug dealers

I am eternally thankful I did trial ad competitions in law school. My only challenge is when judges refuse to let me enter things the rules allow, and I have to figure out how to preserve the record w/o pissing them off

My "3 witnesses in 17 minutes" assault trial was like that. Closest either side had to an objection was me briefly taking the arresting officer on voir fire to argue Miranda applied

Typically yes. Folks just use them b/c they're unlikely to cause injury so you don't get charged with something worse

Do 12-year-olds tweet? I thought all the kids these days use Snapchat

Day 10. And they say *I* tweet obsessively 😂

I've not been over there, but was informed via DM that they pulled my bar page early – but were then quite upset they couldn't see a docket listing of all the cases I had 😂

I didn't have "$1 Trillion in credit cards / small loan debt" when I filed bankruptcy, no

Please make at least a minimal effort to read if you're going to be in my @'s

Yes, except – had you read – you'd have noticed we were discussing my own personal bankruptcy filing

Which wasn't due to medical debt, it was due to Sallie Mae and a beagle with cancer

Apparently?

I truly lack the requisite mental faculties to understand these people

You really should find an original joke, esp when that one was used repeatedly days ago

I mean really folks, recycling jokes from last week?

Do better
Just make sure you're still around when the case ends with Vic taking an L and Percy looking for an excuse

I said mean things about a laughably inept defamation lawsuit an east Texas lawyer filed on behalf of an anime voice actor accused of sexually assaulting women for years

Set for release after the Plaintiff proves the allegations are false

Well that's b/c they have to get back to their day jobs violating folks' rights and such

This is a fantastic title for Screech's show btw

Yep. It'll come out in discovery, but discovery generally isn't filed with the court so the only way you find out about it is if one side or the other leaks

I suspect Percy has some already but is putting on a brave face in public

Enough to convince a jury (or a judge) that the allegations are more likely false than not

If you're litigating a case and all you have is your Plaintiff's statement "that's false," I'd make sure your malpractice insurance carrier knows about it

Yep

Every lawyer does stuff a little differently, but if I were running point on a case like this (which I've had before) the first thing I'd do is collect sworn affidavits from victims and from panel participants

1/
After that, depending on how much damage I wanted to inflict, I'd depose the Plaintiff on camera and (a) have him authenticate every remotely-questionable writing or public comment as being from him, and (b) ask for his thoughts on each paragraph of the lawsuit

2/
@lupinfan83
Once I had my video depo and transcript, I'd file all the affidavits with the court and file my motion for summary judgment citing to both them and the deposition excerpts

3/3
@lupinfan83
Maybe they think the judge is reading my tweets
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Texas government has a website called Re:Search TX where you can download the pleadings for a fee, works very similar to PACER

Right? 😂

All because I said a bumptious defamation LOLsuit was, in fact, bumptious

➡️ Vic's legal team will lose on defamation b/c they can't prove actual malice

➡️ They'll lose the TIC+TIBP claims b/c the "interferer" had a right to do so, and b/c they can't prove actual malice to argue otherwise

➡️ Civil conspiracy can't stand alone

Think of a "civil conspiracy" tort like glue

If one defendant is found liable for some other tort, civil conspiracy sticks to the co-conspirators to make them jointly liable for that other tort, even if they didn't do it themselves

Without another tort, civil conspiracy dies
Confession: I keep bringing it up specifically b/c I know they'll step on that rake 😂

(Well, that and it's actually true)

A friend who wants to remain anonymous sent this to me via DM

I got a kick out of it so I thought I'd share 😂
Req'd by the First Amendment in any defamation case involving either (a) a public figure or (b) an issue of public concern

Vic's lawsuit claims he's a public figure, and allegations of criminal conduct are routinely held to be an issue of public concern

Geoffrey Rush was in Australia

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights

That was going to be my joke but you beat me to the punch 😂

In the Oberlin College case, the trial judge denied the College's request to consider the bakery a limited public figure

It was considered a private figure, with a lower standard of proof required

Vic is not a private figure

The folks at @LegInsurrection have pretty comprehensive coverage of the Oberlin College case

The outcome was not surprising IMO

legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberli…
The difference between those groups of lawyers is that none of us knew wtf this about when it started, and we all know what we're talking about

The judge must be commie SJW Beta cuck soy boi

The alleged "history of racial discrimination"

Evidence was entered showing the number of arrests made for theft over a certain number of years I can't recall, and only about 20% of those arrested were black

Pick any given tweet in the thread, click the downward caret, then pick "Mute This Conversation

The dunkings will continue until morale improves

It is. But they also claimed damages of $1,000,000.00 – you can't do that with a straight face if your client is just some average private schmoe

The better question is *how* 😂 Will you say Very Mean Things about me on YouTube?

These "leaked DMs" make pretty compelling proof that Vic can never prove actual malice, because @marchimark genuinely believed the allegations to be true

Meaning the entire lawsuit collapses

"Actual malice," you'll recall, means the Defendant made the statement either 1️⃣ knowing it was false, or 2️⃣ suspecting it was false but saying it anyway

Telling someone "yeah it happened to me" – months before the first TDMA letter was sent – suggests the exact opposite
I do hope the Defendants' attorneys have interns sporadically checking this thread, because Vic's supporters have provided quite a bit of info that helps the defense
No, only a preponderance. Clear-and-convincing is an elevated standard that most states reserve for a specialized subset of civil cases (like revoking a professional license), it's designed to be a midway point between standard civil and criminal burdens

I tend to over use football analogies, but:
➡️ "reasonable suspicion": a fuzzy area between your own 30-40yd lines
➡️ "preponderance": just across midfield
➡️ "clear and convincing": a fuzzy area between the 25-35yd lines
➡️ "beyond a reasonable doubt": just touching the endzone
I've seen that in multiple summaries, but it's not taken from the NYT v Sullivan opinion itself so I have no idea where it came from

They could, it just wouldn't play as well with the public (which they were/are using to bankroll the case)

The end outcome would be the same – the Defendants argue he's a public figure, even if Vic's team hadn't already – but this is an easier "sell"

You're reading it right, that's the standard that will apply in Texas

States can always expand on federal protections (like making it harder to win a defamation case), but can't go below them

.@mr_random_guy14, see the above tweet with the citation to the Texas Supreme Court – my earlier tweet to you was wrong, Vic *will* need to meet a clear-and-convincing evidence standard on actual malice
An excellent analogy for explaining the three burdens (pleading, production, persuasion) in a civil case starts here
⬇️⬇️⬇️
I stand corrected, I totally misinterpreted that case during bar prep 😂 Thanks for the FYI!

For folks finding this thread later, the first sentence of this earlier tweet is wrong – the "clear and convincing evidence" standard *is* usually for licensure, but also applies to actual malice in defamation cases too

Correct. And I've been defending these types of cases for 7 years now 🙈

"Fact finder" / "finder of fact" is just another way of saying the jury

When they talk about a "reasonable" finder of fact, it's the judge trying to put himself in the shoes of what a typical juror would do

It's a wee bit too wide for the header unfortunately

It's calmed down dramatically compared to Days 2-3 😂

(The Plaintiff in the Oberlin College case was a private figure; Vic Mignogna is not a private figure)

For a certain caliber of incel, it seems that way

Can't have defamation without actual malice

Can't have tortious interference without defamation

Big L coming for Vic / Ty / Nick

For now, because the only thing the Court was asked to consider is a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The defamation case will be dismissed on that basis. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is still coming for TI.

Try to keep up.

I'm not the best counter in the world, but by my count that's now 3 different lawsuit examples, all of which aren't actually comparable in any way to this one
No clue, because defamation cases brought by public figures are almost always dismissed so we don't hear the details 😂

Yep. They pile into my @'s like lemmings throughout the day

No TI unless the statements were defamatory

No statements were defamatory unless there's actual malice

Big L en route for Plaintiff

Loved this game growing up, but this conVic expansion pack sucks

Got that one on Day 9, then recycled again tonight

You can't have civil conspiracy unless at least 1+ other torts survive

The other causes of action are going to end in the Defendants' favor, so the civil conspiracy claim will get tossed automatically afterward

Big, big L coming for Vic et al

From Preston Gate LP v Bukaty, 248 S.W. 3d 892, 898 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008):

"It [civil conspiracy] is a derivative tort and, thus, a defendant's liability for conspiracy is dependent upon his participation in an underlying tort[.]"

courtlistener.com/opinion/138243…
This is – surprise! – substantively identical to how other states (including North Carolina 😉) handle common law civil conspiracy claims
I do so wish they had alleged civil RICO 😂😂

New Twitter banner, one of several I got sent overnight 😂
It doesn't. There's a joke among lawyers that "it's never RICO"; the statute is often cited by commentators and pro se litigants who think it's an effective way to make something sound serious, even though its definition almost never applies to the facts

Oh the Berlusconi kid is still in a subthread tweeting about how much he's OWNING LawTwitter

They're not smart enough to realize that they're getting smacked down

Wish I knew man, you may have to mute my entire account until this ends

Yep. House would make a pretty standard lawyer tbh

Speaking of Kiwis and conVics, y'all remember Christopher Nicholson? 99.9%ile IQ Boy whose only published papers were class assignments in the Georgia Tech library?

1/
Got a DM with a screenshot that he was bragging about that convo on KiwiFarms, and sure enough there's an embed of our Facebook convo

Turns out Mr. Nicholson has been posting quite a bit on KiwiFarms since December 2018

2/
I'd imagine, if you've been a KiwiFarms target where Mr. Nicholson / "topherjn" assisted, you'll want to talk with a lawyer about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 🙃

3/3
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to T. Greg Doucette
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!