Not entirely surprised literacy is not your strong suit though
But I know the First Amendment quite well
Here's the full lawsuit for you: scribd.com/document/40676…
Paragraph numbers plz kkthx
If Defemdants file an anti-SLAPP motion and win, case would be dismissed and defendants awarded their attorney fees
And I read the lawsuit, which is the only context needed to know it will end in an L
I'm trying to figure out what part of "read the entire lawsuit" translated to "one line of stacktrace" in your mind?
Got 27 felonies dismissed in the process though
Not holding my breath of course
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
Tweet less. Read more.
Try again. Do better.
You should read it
Including voice actors for "the lead character" in an "instant ... success" film who then "attend fan conventions, approximately 35-40 per year"
Plaintiff will have to prove actual malice to have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning
Whether I hate you and want to destroy your career doesn't factor in
Do you understand what lawyers do?
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
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.
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
Because "actual malice" and "malice" are different things
Was this supposed to be an insult?
And TX actually has a narrower scope of defamation than NC. Anything not-defamatory here won't be there either.
Thanks for playing though?
Statements based on disclosed depo testimony would be protected though. Opinion based on disclosed facts
Turned out the Plaintiff had been groping women for years
I sure hope you're not as dim as you sound
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
Vic must still prove falsity though
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
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!
And no, that wouldn't be either.
Very witty though for a goat-f*cker!
You'd think senpai could get a little appreciation for finally noticing you...
"Bob's a rapist," on the other hand, is typically an opinion ("rhetorical hyperbole")
Winning a TIC case requires an existing contract. No contracts are alleged anywhere in the lawsuit.
Was that supposed to be an insult?
How many times were you dropped as a child?
In addition, context can make several theoretically-provable "facts" instead treated as rhetorical hyperbole ("Vic's a pedophile") / opinion
I'll accept service of the lawsuit at 311 E Main Street, Durham NC 27701
Falsity is an element of defamation
The burden is on the Plaintiff to prove falsity
Tweet less. Read more.
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
As has been explained as nauseum already
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
Definitely faster if you just scrolled
The "Mr. Super Lawyer" thing is pretty dumb, jsyk
I just also do it for free, so not much sense in broadcasting it
👴🏼: "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?
There won't be a trial though, hence why I said I'd wait for the verdict instead
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.
You should look it up
I'll happily jump in pro bono if they decide they want me on board though
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
Given the recurring nature, I wonder if it would be treated like a prepaid plan 🤔
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 😬
I got a DM that they *did* figure out my dog's name is...
At least be original and say I paid to join the American Association of Justice or some other random sequence of letters
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
...if I just pay $450 or some such 😂
I'll compile a list at some point, they're all buried in the tweets
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
These people are duuuuuumb
There's a reason they haven't found anything I didn't already know about years ago 😉
I'm just impressed you stopped f*cking that goat long enough to figure that out
But yes, insults aren't defamatory so this is protected speech
The specificity makes it sound like you're projecting though 🤔
In any state in the union
Not realizing that lawyers get worse insults pretty regularly?
Defamation has multiple elements. Each box has to be checked before you ever get to the damages phase of a trial.
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
This is why lawyers should always read over the work their paralegals do before signing
The fun part about defamation law is that it doesn't matter
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.
Actual malice requires proving the statement was made knowing it was false, or proving it was made with a reckless disregard for the truth
That's why lawyers tend to put them in the initial complaint
It actually worked last night
Part of the whole "Supremacy Clause" thing
You're also wrong
And yes, truth is always an affirmative defense to defamation here
Instead his lawyers are Streisand-ing the hell out of this
You should probably sit this one out, you're not helping him ❤️
You're admitting here that the defendants were right.
If you're trying to help, you're doing terribly
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? 😂
Both have been mentioned on here repeatedly, but at least try to come up with something bad
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
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
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
You really got me there champ!
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
You should probably Google the Supremacy Clause and the Incorporation Doctrine before speaking next time 😘
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
The case has to get to trial first though
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
Start with Masson v New Yorker Magazine, 501 US 496 (1991) from the Supreme Court of the United States
$100 to a charity of my choice
Which you'd know, had you read it
You people slay me
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.
Sounds like you're admitting this case is a loser
Complete with my voting record! 😂
What I want doesn't matter. The lawsuit won't survive to trial. Period.
I really just want y'all to bathe.
And maybe get laid? With someone who's not a goat.
And how firm the goat is
Thanks for repubbing my GoFundMe though!
You, an intellectual: "yOu MuSt NoT hAvE mAnY cLiEnTs!"
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?
Please send the lawsuit to:
Law Offices of T Greg Doucette PLLC
311 E Main Street
Durham NC 27701-3717
Miranda warnings are for criminal charges, not civil lawsuits
Try again. Do better.
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
You'd have to read rather than reflexively emote to notice though
Plaintiff has to prove statements were false first
Enjoy your rule
I expected better
It would be a huge own
Was that supposed to be a revelation?
It sounds like you're crying
Try again. Do better.
Try to keep up
Like, the oppo dossier is both more accurate and better polished 😂
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
But totally muffed the dog
And the CPAP was paid for about 20 minutes after I asked, been using it for a month now
Seems like it's a new practice area for them, if their website is any guide
I hope you have better attention to detail in law school, b/c yikes
By *pure coincidence,* they all said various versions of "yeah I agree with Greg on this" because I know the law
But stay mad ❤️
Try again. Do better.
How did you pass a bar exam?
And saying under oath at trial "that is false" proves nothing, esp when the case never makes it to trial
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.
I don't want his/her mom's basement anyway though, so nothing worth suing over
2️⃣ "Actual malice" applies to all defamatory statements against public figures and/or on matters of public concern
This isn't hard
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
Among them are opinions, rhetorical hyperbole, anything that is true, etc etc etc
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/
That, or Halloween
The North Carolina State Bar
217 East Edenton Street
Raleigh NC 27601
"I don't understand, therefore you are explaining yourself poorly" is certainly a take
I'm scorched-earth'ing the LOLsuit against them because it's garbage and I enjoy it
If you were as good at reading as you are at artistry, you'd have noticed
But then, that would require them to think through the logical implications of what they tweet before hitting the "Tweet" button
Projection like whoa
Rent must be due
After Vic's team first proves, by that same preponderance, that they were false
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
They're separate, independent burdens. Nothing "shifts."
And that it doesn't mean what you think it means?
They were too busy grunting to notice
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
State standards vary slightly; federally you'll want to read Bell Atlantic v Twombly and Ashcroft v Iqbal
I wish there was a way to set it up now and hold their money in escrow until it's over 😂
Surely you understand that federal case law interpreting the First Amendment is binding on a state defamation lawsuit, right?
And if @NickRekieta said otherwise, he overpaid for law school.
And it was upheld on appeal
Think through your tweets next time, you're not good at this
I'm afraid I have bad news...
They found I drive a Hyundai Elantra 😱
It was totaled 3 years ago
High quality doxxing
A point he understood back in January, but doesn't now for some reason
He doesn't want to be on record here, for obvious reasons
That was already mentioned a few times mid-thread, if you'd stop f*cking that goat long enough to read
When he's not building me another one on his livestream of course
TL;DR version: the defendants won
Because the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff.
This is a really basic concept.
So yuge, the Plaintiffs had to pay money to the Defendants!
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
Y'all sound pathetic. Grow a set.
Try again. Do better.
Never thinking what would happen when the Defendants then said "no, it's not false" and NOW WHAT
And that they mean different things?
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?
Or less humiliating for them, idk
Rhetorical hyperbole like that – insults – are protected by the First Amendment and by definition cannot be defamatory
He will never be humbled, because he's too busy emoting in ALL CAPS RAGE to ponder the concept
Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974). Google it.
Quite a few @fsckemall episodes also include lawsplainers on different topics. They'll be listed in the show notes
In my experience, though, "scorned lovers" tend to be damning witnesses
I'm eternally grateful for having friends who never let me become this insufferable
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
Then I Googled it. And saw the Plaintiffs had to pay the Defendants b/c the Defendants won.
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.
And try to pick a case where the Plaintiff actually wins this time?
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
I'm actually impressed that *this many people* are spending *this much time* on it
I know the goats are thankful for the break
It sounds like you're crying
The self-assuredness in the face of getting curbstomped – complete with totally losing composure on a livestream – is funny af
Y'all didn't sign up for this and I'll post something more festive when it dies down
I know the goat is thankful
I do know it wasn't tortious intereference, and my remedy would be to complain about it publicly rather than file a LOLsuit
But ppl do love their Pyrrhic victories, so good for him paying bills in the interim
It's called expectation-setting. You're being rolled and don't realize it.
We crowdsourced a couple thousand to cover the filing fees for... 1?
You kiwi goobers really think you got me there 😂
From which I'm not getting any of the money, unlike Nick and Ty
Smart play if he wasn't going to file the LOLsuit
Idiotic play now that he has
Wouldn't be surprised to see it included in either the TCPA briefing or a motion for summary judgment later
I hope their malpractice insurance is paid up if so
Because what they think OUGHT to happen would bury most of their saviors if it were actual law
If they don't present enough evidence to meet that burden, the Defendants win automatically before they'd have to prove anything at all
Clearly I'll have to go kill myself now to recover from the shame
They really doxxed the f*ck out of me
Or maybe they realized this was all a deliberate conspiracy to divert their attention... 🤔
The one where Toye is exercising his independent legal right to negotiate the terms of whether he'd sponsor the con?
Meaning... there was no actual malice
Meaning the LOLsuit fails
The Roberts SCOTUS has been particularly 1A-protective
Try again. Do better.
Was this another kiwi "find"? 😂
I assumed they were ppl, though in retrospect I realize that may be defamatory toward the rest of you 😉
Yeah, they've been shared too
You managed to find that tweet, you should scroll and read the rest
And even provided everyone with the starting point for case law on rhetorical hyperbole 😱
You managed to find that tweet, you should scroll and read the rest"
Because the Constitution contains a Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment provides the Incorporation Doctrine
This is elementary school civics
This is hard work and I demand compensation
Again, this is basic stuff
Why do you think Nick's been having an aneurysm the past few days?
I don't know what you think happens in Student Government meetings, but certainly sounds like you should seek therapy for it
And no, I don't have clients on Saturdays
I already said, repeatedly, that I prefer doing it here where there's a vastly bigger audience
Your goat's calling btw
You're really bad at this
Media companies tend to be even better-defended than individuals
Instead, they did a "LOL let's sue everybody so they can pool their resources!" approach
Your goat is getting agitated you're not back yet btw
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
"You've been totally owned and boned. No one believes you. Please stop talking now? ::begs::"
Not getting paid != going into the hole paying the court costs
The goat's still waiting...
I'm legit wondering how many aneurysms I can induce with these CHUDs
Definitely looks like tears
But he's not going to get that either
So lawyers will manage that on the front end as much as possible
Very rare circumstances when convictions for crimes of moral turpitude don't come in
Him and Ty are peas in a pod really
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 😘
I don't threaten the people my clients sue, we just let the Sheriff show up on their doorstep with it
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
Because it looks like you're crying
Grow a set
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
Cat is good :) he's currently sleeping
189 IQ would know that
And a lack of affection from non-livestock
Because I didn't have to
Because I know First Amendment law, and I recognize defective ass pleadings when I see them 😂
OK Screech 😂
VicStans and KiwiFarms goobers think you have to pay to have it, they run super-secret chatrooms, etc
It confirms the convention contacted @RonToye, rather than Ron going out of his way to torpedo Vic's invite
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
So Nick and Ty could then grift more money from the fans
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
Thanks for playing though!
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
I hold grudges and have poor impulse control 🙃
The years get jumbled over time 😂
It just happens most of the ways for doing so aren't options
Most likely because he did it
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
We live in a society where people are convinced you can win a lawsuit over anything
Daniel is very offended someone is poking fun at his bestiality fetish
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)!
But ELL OH ELL that these f*cking goobers think they're accomplishing anything with me 😂
Typical delta male sh*t really. Even the betas aren't that sad.
I do know, with absolute certainty backed understanding the law, that he's going to lose this bumptious LOLsuit
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 🙃
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
There was a 10-day lack of communication, then the con reached out, then Vic's name was mentioned for the first time
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)
When it crosses into actual stalking, some states' laws can help
2️⃣ How about "actual malice"?
Props for transparency I guess? 🤣🤣🤣
You'll be shocked (shocked!) to discover it's almost identical to the Federal Rule of Evidence 405 😱
Let me know where I need to send the rent payment for living in your head btw
He chose this path. So be it.
Y'all will be shocked (shocked!) to know this is verbatim-identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(21) 😱
I just wish he was more competent about what he discussed so his viewers weren't misinformed about reality
It's gross, but at least you're honest about it
Looks like tears
Like they weren't both in the exact same picture for everyone else to see
You're *really* bad at this
Or are you one of those people who *prefer* being misled by having things cut out? 😂
I'm personally enjoying the game of whack-a-troll
As lawyers do
The defense will almost certainly compel his deposition under oath, preferably with a videographer
Some of us have minimum standards of quality. I realize as a Nick / Ty fan you probably don't understand what that means 😘
Lots of cackling
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"
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)
Welcome back, sorry for the dumpster fire 😂
Luckily street pharmacists don't pick their lawyers on YouTube
You're terrible at this
(Ironically enough we do have guests on occasion, including several lawyers. They're just not imbeciles.)
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
(Assuming the case ever makes it to trial, which in *this* case is unlikely)
General rule is that things are rarely ever defamatory. It's like RICO – not never, but pretty close.
I'm not surprised you're a Vic / Nick / Ty fan
Because it looks like you're crying
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
"Bob's a child molester!" on Twitter would not
It does shed some light on your fantasies though, and ewwww
You may need to re-assess who's got the hots for who
By that math, my grad-level paper on privacy technology and the law should qualify too then
But I wouldn't be able to win a lawsuit over it
Cry about it.
It will make his tears taste that much better
That's already been addressed in the thread, several times
Cry about it
At least three separate times, all in the very same thread you're currently in
Cry about it
And "cry about it" isn't an insult.
Cry about it.
Right now some of my biggest successes have been getting street pharmacists to go legit
Y'all let me know how much Screech and Percy talk about me on their show tonight 🙃
I'm here because I greatly enjoy pissing off CHUDs and trashing bumptious LOLsuits
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.
Certainly sounds to me like that means the plan is working...
...never realizing I've been doing this for 3.25 years now? Longer?
You should read it.
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
But not defamatory
There's been *lots* of cackling Bärí 😂
Of course Screech didn't know that
Requiring affirmative proof by Vic of actual malice, even if he weren't a public figure
Their messaging discipline rivals the best politicians
If Percy wrote that statement for him, I'd be looking into a malpractice claim. That's a pretty bad admission on multiple fronts.
I do so hope you're still here for the "told ya so" tweets after he loses
It would provide an easy future reference point whenever Vic tried to rebuild his career
You seem unfamiliar with how courts work
Maybe we're making progress after all
Perk of retweets ☺️
Do you speak English?
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
It's boring as f*ck
They look like tears
It makes me wonder how many of these people would actually be enjoyable human beings if they had friends
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
Same approach that will be taken by the LOLyers
It's classic "I'm an X, but even I support anti-X" framing
Who wants to tell Screech and Percy?
I hold grudges and have poor impulse control. Plus I *really* enjoy making bullies have an aneurysm.
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
So Plaintiff goes, then Defendant 1 goes, Defendant 2, etc
And the jury would judge each independently
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
And to never make these apologies after he filed suit
Someone should let Vic know
This is why defamation LOLsuits are ridiculed on Twitter
Cry about it
Which, historically, it does. Briefly.
But then they lose and things are even worse than they would be otherwise
Keep crying though
The sockpuppetry is just sad
100% to me
I'm living rent-free in your head and you don't even notice
They likely assumed the company would settle to save money
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
It's also why Screech and Percy set up the GoFundMe, so they can still get paid after Vic gets smoked
They're different concepts
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...
Referencing Vic's "previously diminished reputation"? Standard lawyerese
Calling Vic "libel-proof," which functionally means the exact same thing? Planning a bonfire
The only way to curtail lawfare is to make an example of the aggressors
"Published" ➡️ sent to 1+ other people
You're embarrassing yourself man
Definitely looks like you're crying
You should read them
He could even make a living defending them instead of screeching for the live-streams
Vic goes first. If he presents enough evidence, then Ds
Vic fanbois may need to GoFundMe a change of undies for Screech
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.
Because it sure looks like you're crying
If you want him to add me to the defamation LOLsuit, please tell Percy so he can do it 😘
And he has to prove the people who made them knew they were false
Good luck with that
Very perceptive, A++
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
The CHUDs are SOL though, they don't get anything back
Likewise, a Court often dismisses without prejudice where a lawsuit has some minor form/procedural defects revealed in a Motion to Dismiss hearing
After that 1st round, practices vary widely by state
(Our appellate lawyers can chime in if I'm missing anything)
If you would stop f*cking that goat, you might learn something
And the nagging self-doubt that you are, in fact, a brainlet
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
"He hugs everyone!" will be evidence proving the gist that he touches women w/o consent
27-screenshot album starts here: facebook.com/RisemboolRange…
Many many many
It's creepy and I love it 😬
(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. 😘)
My educated guess is that there might be some form of potential negligence, but probably time-barred by SOL
Notice: about a dozen other lawyers were also on the same page, they know this stuff too :)
Why you think a translation of something he doesn't understand is helpful, idk 😂
Percy almost certainly keeps his GFM billables, yes
So then I googled for the lawsuit itself, and discovered it was only marginally less LOLable
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
Let's hope whoever inevitably shares screencaps of these emails also includes full header data. I suspect reviewing the IP addresses will be fascinating.
The same firm sanctioned by Texas courts for fake subpoenas, complaining about fake emails
The full header data will have the IP address of the originating computer and every hop made en route though
(My money is on them seeing a screenshot taken from Gmail and assuming that meant the email came from a gmail.com address)
Then I realized I was paying money to never use it
Now it's a Chinese gambling site IIRC
2️⃣ Much less than $1K/mo
3️⃣ Haven't had a Hyundai since 2016
4️⃣ Cry about it
Note well: there wouldn't be any need to do damage control if all this exposure wasn't hurting them
Won't stop them from getting railed in court though. This is all performative outrage.
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
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
Go garden 👋
There are some additional nuances by state, but that should get him mostly up-to-speed
That language is more signaling than legal effect though
They're telegraphing that they have lots of evidence
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::
Read the last line of his tweet. That's the only part he wanted to say
And I'm *totally fine* giving them that... as long as we can all collectively continue dunking on them 😇
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
Vic is the one suing. The people he's suing are innocent until proven otherwise.
He will then be cross-examined by at *least* 3 different defense attorneys. Who will crucify him.
TX appellate courts have said taking longer than 30 days to decide is treated as a constructive denial of the anti-SLAPP
Vic uses a lot of them, noticeable to anyone who's read "Spy the Lie"
The only one that actually made me chuckle was Wendy's-Arby's "girl"
If he's gonna spend hours working on a banner, at least take out the template text at the top and bottom
If the defamation claim fails, alllllll the others go bye-bye. Automatically.
The LOLsuit is getting nuked, the only question is when
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.
Been dealing with the diddlers' and LOLyers' fanbois since
Consider: every single arrest, of every person, no matter how minor the offense, is a matter of public interest
Sure sounds like wire fraud...
"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
But he's (allegedly) a LOLyer so nothing will happen
The one that's usually the top result when you Google my name and go under the "News" tab?
Try again. Do better.
They're uniformly dumb af, it's impressive
You would know that, were you capable of understanding polysyllabic words
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
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
Cry about it.
Take "Hyundai-driving." Sick burn bro. But I've been in a Toyota RAV4 since 2016
I miss that car 😭
It would be epic
Sounds like an opportune time to file detailed affidavits from Vic's victims, since those victims then couldn't be sued for them later
This is a civil LOLsuit
Idk what happened between then and now, but I'm embarrassed for him
And the skinny guy on the side could definitely be Screech
We call these things "Phyrric victories," because he's going to end up worse than before after this case is done
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
Did you see his follow-up?
It's a concept designed exclusively to benefit Defendants
The defendants here are not Vic
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
Dude's brain has melted from the CHUD asspats
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
Of course the easiest way to stop me is to stop @'ing me so I'd have nothing to cash in on 🤔
I enjoy how worked up they get. And some of the other folks who've joined the dunkfest are damn funny
But otherwise yes, totally agreed
They have medications for that
You're just not adequately informed to realize that's what's been going on
They are not related and are in-no-way alike
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
And there are *hundreds* of these 😱
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 🙃
Provides enormous scads of "reputation in the community" evidence establishing his pre-existing rep as a sexual predator
Sounds like these comments are even more uniformly damning than I thought!
And it's a whole thread!
You are wrong
They may have grounds to file what's called a counterclaim, but seems unlikely
(This is correct btw)
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
And that's *after* getting @'d by Nick Rekieta and Ty Beard
A simple denial will not be sufficient evidence to win his case. Especially after 3 separate attorneys cross-examine him
And even if he weren't, his predatory tendencies are an issue of public concern
Actual malice req'd
Except maybe a goat's hindquarters
There a metric f*ckload of public figures I've literally never heard of at any point in life
If someone is a public figure to anybody, they are a public figure to everyone
And tbh I'm not even sure we're near the bottom yet
I really started the F*ckin' YIKES series as a joke, but damn there really. is. always. more. 🤢🤮
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
Since the First Amendment "is not absolute," which part of it do you think was violated?
1️⃣ How do you think attorneys do consultations?
2️⃣ What jurisdiction do you think I need to advise someone on the First Amendment?
How do organizations like the NC Bar Association do Ask-A-Lawyer telethons where people call in to have their questions answered then?
Now back to my Q: are you admitting lawyers can do consultations without seeking a lawyer-client relationship?
Are you admitting lawyers can do consultations without seeking a lawyer-client relationship?
Let me fix that oversight right quick
The judge I talked to was/is in N.C. though. Idk howtf these people think they were in TX
I am deeply pleased with myself that I can be both so irrelevant and so influential at the same time
Thus concludes Day 7 – Week 1! – of The Threadnought
I'll work on a separate summary thread for quick nav tomorrow
But first I have an 11a hearing so brb
Minnesota – where Nick "Screech" Rekieta practices law – has a criminal defamation statute
So when he read case law on civil defamation, he didn't realize that "actual malice" was a different legal concept
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"
Again, total speculation. I could be wrong. But the theory fits the facts.
People are routinely convicted every day on literally nothing but personal testimony.
It's why our criminal justice system is such horsesh*t
I laughed at them; this resulted
So what do you think "actual malice" means? It's not a trick question
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?
"malice" and "actual malice" are different legal concepts
Since you've read the complaint, where are the paragraphs alleging actual malice?
For now, though, I'm getting too many DMs of ppl taking great joy in watching the spectacle
Idk who suggested this app to me but I owe you a drink
You're dumber than a bucketful of used condoms
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
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
Turns out they plagiarized several other sections too 😂
How many Plaintiffs were there? Were they public or private figures? What statement(s) were allegedly defamatory and why?
I seem to recall a lawyer somewhere saying that sort of scenario was actionable... 🤔
The suit is LOLbad; I said that. Screech and Percy had aneurysms. Thus began the Threadnought
Waves of trolls, and the occasional lawyer on the other side, have been sharing their non-understanding of the laws since
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 :)
It's truly been a festive team effort 😆
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
And I guarantee neither Percy nor Screech have put more than a dozen hours into this case. Max.
And this is the URL where I posted the screenshot before I tipped him off, because I knew he'd delete it 🙃
And in another, a conVic is arguing that 14yo's freely consent to being groped by men in their 50s 🤢🤮
Photo analysis guy says...
It'll be my pinned tweet for a bit, so folks who've been wondering wtf is going on can get caught up
Of course it is
➡️ 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'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
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
The judge got so annoyed she actually ended my direct, stopped me from closing, and granted our order 😂
I'm just impressed at how fearsome the paper tiger is
Please make at least a minimal effort to read if you're going to be in my @'s
Which wasn't due to medical debt, it was due to Sallie Mae and a beagle with cancer
I truly lack the requisite mental faculties to understand these people
I suspect Percy has some already but is putting on a brave face in public
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
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
All because I said a bumptious defamation LOLsuit was, in fact, bumptious
➡️ 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
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
(Well, that and it's actually true)
Vic's lawsuit claims he's a public figure, and allegations of criminal conduct are routinely held to be an issue of public concern
Australia does not have a Bill of Rights
It was considered a private figure, with a lower standard of proof required
Vic is not a private figure
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
Meaning the entire lawsuit collapses
Telling someone "yeah it happened to me" – months before the first TDMA letter was sent – suggests the exact opposite
➡️ "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
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"
States can always expand on federal protections (like making it harder to win a defamation case), but can't go below them
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
Can't have tortious interference without defamation
Big L coming for Vic / Ty / Nick
The defamation case will be dismissed on that basis. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is still coming for TI.
Try to keep up.
No statements were defamatory unless there's actual malice
Big L en route for Plaintiff
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
"It [civil conspiracy] is a derivative tort and, thus, a defendant's liability for conspiracy is dependent upon his participation in an underlying tort[.]"
They're not smart enough to realize that they're getting smacked down