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

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:

Power Word: YEET

kiwifarms.net
As a non-America I'm not sure but could they just declare bankruptcy to get out of it?
Legal judgements for intentional torts are generally not dischargeable under bankruptcy. Drunk driving is included in this, as the decision to drive drunk is considered "intentional" even if a resulting automobile collision was accidental.

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.
If it's their primary residence (and under 10 acres), then no. Texas has some pretty friendly laws protecting debtors.

“These are defamatory per say."
It's "per se", latin for "by itself".
 

Genkoda

A fluorescent African American government worker
kiwifarms.net
Legal judgements for intentional torts are generally not dischargeable under bankruptcy. Drunk driving is included in this, as the decision to drive drunk is considered "intentional" even if a resulting automobile collision was accidental.



If it's their primary residence (and under 10 acres), then no. Texas has some pretty friendly laws protecting debtors.
Does that include chapter 13 bankruptcy though? I know Texas will not seize a house for debt, but I thought bankruptcy would be different.
 
Last edited:

GenericReviewerDraco

Fluffy Halloween Anna
kiwifarms.net
Wait so are you saying that limited public figure Jamie Marchi, that is a Voice actress for funimation, may be an alleged pedophile?
Sabat allegedly was banned from a con for flirting with underaged girls, Rial fucks kid diddlers, Sarah Wiedenheft defended her pedophile brother and said Vic was way worse, and Jamie worked with a kid diddler in one of her most memorable roles; they (Sabat, Rial, Marchi) all hate Christians because they have the most "infamous histories" of being sex pests/their "self-righteousness" towards people with different sexual preferences. A lot of extreme lefties are pedophiles; most of anti-GG got arrested for being pedophilic sex pests despite "winning" GG for the most part.
 

The Singer Of Songs

I sing, I dance, I pour seltzer down your pants.
kiwifarms.net
Quality > Quantity. Even if his only ones were Nick letting loose a bunch of information, and the one Nick showed last night that in theory could be more than enough. I've got a feeling though that they've got atleast 5 or 6.
There's over that many. I know at least 1 that's in there, personally. (and no, it ain't me.)
 

Questioning_Huggers

kiwifarms.net
And if they lose in court they'll claim that they won in the court of public opinion and brought truth to the fans.
It was HER TURN to finally get her name on the box set, b
Legal judgements for intentional torts are generally not dischargeable under bankruptcy. Drunk driving is included in this, as the decision to drive drunk is considered "intentional" even if a resulting automobile collision was accidental.



If it's their primary residence (and under 10 acres), then no. Texas has some pretty friendly laws protecting debtors.



It's "per se", latin for "by itself".
fuck, shit, you're right was typing so fast i didn't even noticed, gimme a sec and i'll fix
 

verissimus

kiwifarms.net
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.

View attachment 850106

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 say. 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 say defamation. That actually foregoes any arguments about damages. Even in ‘death by a thousand cuts’. They’re per say defamatory. Now maybe the damages are nominal, but the standard, the actual law, the case law about per say damages, is that if per say damages or if per say defamation occurs, per say damages even if nominal are mandated. Or not per say... 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.”
Hold on...didn't Lemoine himself use that expression which then Vic quoted, but they're using that on this TCPA thing as proof against him...dafuq...
 

Adach_Ame

kiwifarms.net
I just had a thought... not not a thot, a thought. Let the true autist or I mean artists make a parody of Superman with Nick Rekieta. Muhhahahahaha
91UdQNa5BSL._RI_.jpg

I'm a bit of a animated series version fan. Ahahaha To help FURTHER distinguish Nick from the "Super Lolyer" Like imagine pulls away a lawyer suit(I know he doesn't wear a suit) with a emblem of Rekieta Law on his chest. hahaha
 

Zero Day Defense

"When the rain washes you clean, you'll know..."
kiwifarms.net
Oh no, there is some graphic salacious stuff in Specht's afidavit.
Oh, you right, you right, she was the one who included the affidavit exhibits.

...screw her.

If she actually thought that her private conversations with her ex-fiancé about their failed relationships were in any way pertinent to this case and should have been made public record, she's more unstable and emotionally stunted than originally thought-- and no, I don't care about how she was hurt at this point. I would have cared-- and frankly, everyone would have cared-- if this controversy was only about how he cheated on her, but it's not, and she knows that (or at least, she should).

The only people who give a shit about her failed relationship at this point are the people who are using it as a bludgeon against her ex-fiancé because they'll use anything instead of focusing on what he's accused of doing, and she's an idiot for not seeing the kind of people she's chosen to cooperate with, and an idiot for not realizing the only value of her contribution to this lawsuit.

It's ridiculously difficult to empathize with her when the destruction of her trust in him has led her to believe, with no real appreciation for the gravity of the accusations and the necessity of vetting, that he's done everything up to (and including) rape, when the only thing she does know for sure is that he was regularly unfaithful. And she said that she wouldn't have to pray for his destruction if she wanted it because she had everything she needed for about a year at this point.

Presumably, this isn't "everything [she] needed", but it very well could function as such, especially these days. And mind you, dear onlookers: this isn't to suggest in the slightest that Specht has any major role in any of this, but rather to suggest that the charity she offered (i.e. not exposing Vic's infidelity, "destroying him") was retracted when she decided to be a participant in this.
 
Last edited:

Immaculate Ape

It was ME... DIO!
kiwifarms.net
Oh, you right, you right, she was the one who included the affidavit exhibits.

...screw her.

If she actually thought that her private conversations with her ex-fiancé about their failed relationships were in any way pertinent to this case and should have been made public record, she's more unstable and emotionally stunted than originally thought-- and no, I don't care about how she was hurt at this point. I would have cared-- and frankly, everyone would have cared-- if this controversy was only about how he cheated on her, but it's not, and she knows that (or at least, she should).

The only people who give a shit about her failed relationship at this point are the people who are using it as a bludgeon against their ex-fiancé because they'll use anything instead of focusing on what he's accused of doing, and she's an idiot for not seeing the kind of people she's chosen to cooperate with, and an idiot for not realizing the only value of her contribution to this lawsuit.

It's ridiculously difficult to empathize with her when the destruction of her trust in him has led her to believe, with no real appreciation for the gravity of the accusations and the necessity of vetting, that he's done everything up to statutory, when the only thing she does know for sure is that he was regularly unfaithful. And she said that she wouldn't have to pray for his destruction if she wanted it because she had everything she needed for about a year at this point.

Presumably, this isn't "everything [she] needed", but it very well could function as such, especially these days. And mind you, dear onlookers: this isn't to suggest in the slightest that Specht has any major role in any of this, but rather to suggest that the charity she offered (i.e. not exposing Vic's infidelity, "destroying him") was retracted when she decided to be a participant in this.
The simple answer here is that she's an alpha personality, and she is attempting to regain her domination.

Her entire rant letter is about how Vic wanted to be the dominant one in the relationship and how she wanted to be recognized as an equal independent.

It's been a long time since they split, and she's clearly still struggling to deal with the fact that she was wrong; wrong to trust him, wrong to ignore evidence because she thought that she and she alone would be enough to change Vic's ways.

She wanted him to change, and refused to change herself.

So now she sees Vic has moved on and is successful, and she resents that he isn't capitulating to her dominance. That's all this is about. She's playing herself.
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Edwards says she avoided working with him, but then gets upset because she wanted to be cast in his Star Trek series. Ok.
And yet again, one of these freakshows admits the real reason they're making up lies about him. They're so fucking transparent.

You should check out Greenberger's filings from the Maddox/Masterson case. He spelt out BALD, CUCK and APOSTROPHE with the first letters of each word in different filings (possibly other words). Threw in a bunch of bald jokes and strange in-jokes that would only ring with Dickheads. It was strange, and a joy to read over the filings of his.
My favorite was the running dog bite jokes.

What planet do these hambeasts live on? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?
A hamplanet of course.

I'm sorry, this statement written by Chuck Huber reads as an attempt at gaslighting.
Some of that language sounds like something Rial would come up with.

Edit: I don't care what Nick says ... what Chuck did is really fucking scummy.
I don't think it was malicious but I do think it was outrageously stupid.
 
Last edited:

verissimus

kiwifarms.net
Man, I'm not even done watching Nick's recent video on the TCPA, and I am simply dumbfounded. As if they couldn't make it fundamentally clear that they weren't actually engaged in defaming and wanting to screw over Vic from the very beginning, the document constantly refers to

1) Vic being homophobic which has nothing to do with anything since he wasn't fired for that (nor was any proof of that provided);

2) Vic is a pedophile...somehow. Again no proof of this is provided. Instead they simply assume this because he either flirts too much with young women who may be underage (something he honestly should have been more careful about) and gets a little too physical with hugs and kisses which not only is not illegal nor qualifies as harassment but which I'm a 100% sure some of the very VAs that have backstabbed him or left him to dry has done as well;

3) Vic has stated to be a Christian but acts nothing like it...which does admittedly have truth to that but is still irrelevant and so forth; and last (for the time being)

4) Vic is somehow some evil genius mastermind so hell bent on chasing young women that he has sought the services of a Shock Jock Black-faced internet lawyer from Minnesota to set up a defense fund to silence "victims", Like really? Are you trying to get the judge to die from laughing? Why would you even paint this kind of picture for him? I can understand you doing this for the Twitter and Tumbler crowd, but for the court?
 
Last edited:

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino