In the meantime, let's take a run through this one.
I'm going to talk about that and about bad faith assholery later.
Because Ty Beard litigates like a toddler, I don't know what the hell this is replying to. And if I was drafting the reply myself, I still might not know. I doubt that Judge Chupp - or Judge Chupp's clerk - are in any better a position.
Know what? I hope they go with that argument. It will serve them right.
And sorry for the delay - life interfered.
Remember when I said that lawyers and judges check the footnotes? That's what he did.
(2) his client had previously testified otherwise.
Most of the rest of the public figure argument is a skip-past for me for the moment; I've been solid on the Lane v Pharis analysis for some time now, and see no issues.
That said, there's one point worth note.
And it's made more solid, to be blunt, by this weekend's shenanigans.
Whether or not these were the only ones Ty had in mind when he wrote the First Amended Petition, they're the only ones now.
I was, and remain, a bit less confident in a TCPA dismissal here than I was regarding Marchi and Funimation. (I've thought an across-the-board success was likely, just not as certain as the others.)
That said -
I'm going to reserve a final guess until we get a better idea of how Judge Chupp is planning on handling the current disaster.
I'll be back later to look at the Marchi reply and to try and sort through everything else that was filed.