Nick Rekieta's Weeb Wars videos & livestreams - MULTIPLE SLURS

Archeopthryx

kiwifarms.net
I remember when Jim played on air a dramatic reading of some whacked out conspiracy theorist. Rackets missed the opportunity to read the TCPA in that style.
 

Immaculate Ape

It was ME... DIO!
kiwifarms.net
Fuck that cunt. If her pussy game was any good Vic wouldn't had to look for love in all the wrong places.

I'm sorry but that isn't really a good argument at all. Look at it like this;

Somebody you were with for years admitted that they were incredibly unfaithful to you during that time. You can no longer trust anything they told you, but your VA friends are saying that he is all these terrible things. They told you he cheated on you, and now that you know they were right about that what else might they be right about?

Hurt hearts seek answers. If your friends are right about one thing and you have a great deal of hate, wouldn't it be easy to believe the other things?

Don't hold these statements against Specht just yet. Look at this objectively and you'll understand.
True, "hurt hearts seek answers"

That's also true for Vic. He wouldn't be searching outside of his relationship had his needs have been fully tended to. Obviously there were failures on either side of this, and it's less an accepted discussion because today's society frowns upon any suggestion women have a carnal duty to their partners.

That being said, being sexually satisfied is a mutual agreement between all parties involved in the relationship and it's something that should be agreed upon or in the very least, terms discussed when entering into the relationship.

Kids (legal age kids) don't often get that concept, and it is something that is usually learned with age or something that is just conceded.

That's why some people choose to be polyamorous, so they can seek what their partners aren't able or willing to give them, and still pursue a happy and healthy relationship.

To be fair, yes, Michelle was hurting - but Vic doesn't owe her any more than she owed him. If she was not faithful and/or willing to keep up with her commitments to the relationship, it is her responsibility to identify that and work on a compromise or propose a solution.

Not sure if they discussed any of that, but going on the basis that they were a good Christian couple, I doubt any discussion like that happened and so, here we are.

Sorry, not sorry for the long analysis... it's rare that I get to use what I went to school for so I wave that autism flag any chance I get
 

Zero Day Defense

(Get crazy with the Cheez Whiz!)
kiwifarms.net
Fuck that cunt. If her pussy game was any good Vic wouldn't had to look for love in all the wrong places.
My understanding is that they're both Christian, and they weren't actually having sex with each other.

Frankly, I would be sympathetic, but apart from the fact that Vic's being unjustly strung by the ankles for accusations of everything up to child rape, should she have willingly and wittingly contributed to this legal smear job, she can eat it-- I won't in any way give a damn that she got cheated on, and even with Vic's infidelity, it'll be clearer as to why they were in engagement limbo until they broke up.

No, I don't care that she likely doesn't think of him as a pedophile-- she's cooperating with people who are circulating that lie, almost certainly blind to the actual stakes.
 

Genkoda

A fluorescent African American government worker
kiwifarms.net
As a non-America I'm not sure but could they just declare bankruptcy to get out of it?
They would have to sell the house and any other assets they have i believe to do a 13. I may be mistaken as well, but the courts do tend to demand that all assets to not be sold or transferred while ongoing litigation occurs too so they cannot legally get out of that without getting into deep shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paddy O' Furniture

RodgerDodger

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
My understanding is that they're both Christian, and they weren't actually having sex with each other.

Frankly, I would be sympathetic, but apart from the fact that Vic's being unjustly strung by the ankles for accusations of everything up to child rape, should she have willingly and wittingly contributed to this legal smear job, she can eat it-- I won't in any way give a damn that she got cheated on, and even with Vic's infidelity, it'll be clearer as to why they were in engagement limbo until they broke up.

No, I don't care that she likely doesn't think of him as a pedophile-- she's cooperating with people who are circulating that lie, almost certainly blind to the actual stakes.
Oh no, there is some graphic salacious stuff in Specht's afidavit.
 

Genkoda

A fluorescent African American government worker
kiwifarms.net
Monica fucked two out of three pedophiles and parts of her episode 1 dialog in Panty and Stocking was talking about how she enjoyed fucking a pedophile and would "gladly have his abortion".

Jamie could be molesting her fiance's kids; she did work with pedophiles like Scott Freeman and Chris Sabat.
Wait so are you saying that limited public figure Jamie Marchi, that is a Voice actress for funimation, may be an alleged pedophile?
 

Questioning_Huggers

kiwifarms.net
Wait wait where is this or is there a SS of this?
Lemoine had a freudian slip during Vic's depo, we mostly made fun of him for it but then shrugged it off as a slip of the tongue, too tired to go digging through to find that right now. This last bit is in MoRon's TCPA, page 24.

1563608229080.png

Per Nick, about three hours in, via my very tired transcribing so apologies for any mistakes but I got the most important bits right: “These are defamatory per se. These are... they’re arguing that... First they’re- I guess they’re making a libel proof argument that isn’t going to work on Vic at all. Especially because we can show constantly that he’s still drawing business. But they’re arguing that they can’t provide clear and specific evidence that it caused him to lose any work. Calling someone a sexual predator, or a pedophile, or a child molester, that’s per se defamation. That actually foregoes any arguments about damages. Even in ‘death by a thousand cuts’. They’re per se defamatory. Now maybe the damages are nominal, but the standard, the actual law, the case law about per se damages, is that if per se damages or if per say defamation occurs, per say damages even if nominal are mandated. Or not per se... the damages are presumed. So even if they’re just nominal damages. This is a bad argument. They did not argue that he couldn’t prove the falsity of the statements, they kind of argue that they don’t defame him but that defamation is per say, it’s a matter of law. They may have made a big mistake here.”

edit: tired brain didn't want to write in latin, mea culpa
 
Last edited: